Literature DB >> 24126676

Differential effectiveness of placebo treatments: a systematic review of migraine prophylaxis.

Karin Meissner1, Margrit Fässler, Gerta Rücker, Jos Kleijnen, Asbjorn Hróbjartsson, Antonius Schneider, Gerd Antes, Klaus Linde.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: When analyzing results of randomized clinical trials, the treatment with the greatest specific effect compared with its placebo control is considered to be the most effective one. Although systematic variations of improvements in placebo control groups would have important implications for the interpretation of placebo-controlled trials, the knowledge base on the subject is weak.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether different types of placebo treatments are associated with different responses using the studies of migraine prophylaxis for this analysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We searched relevant sources through February 2012 and contacted the authors to identify randomized clinical trials on the prophylaxis of migraine with an observation period of at least 8 weeks after randomization that compared an experimental treatment with a placebo control group. We calculated pooled random-effects estimates according to the type of placebo for the proportions of treatment response. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. In a network meta-analysis, direct and indirect comparisons within and across trials were combined. Additional analyses were performed for continuous outcomes. EXPOSURE: Active migraine treatment and the placebo control conditions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of treatment responders, defined as having an attack frequency reduction of at least 50%. Other available outcomes in order of preference included a reduction of 50% or greater in migraine days, the number of headache days, or headache score or a significant improvement as assessed by the patients or their physicians.
RESULTS: Of the 102 eligible trials, 23 could not be included in the meta-analyses owing to insufficient data. Sham acupuncture (proportion of responders, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.30-0.47]) and sham surgery (0.58 [0.37-0.77]) were associated with a more pronounced reduction of migraine frequency than oral pharmacological placebos (0.22 [0.17-0.28]) and were the only significant predictors of response in placebo groups in multivariable analyses (P = .005 and P = .001, respectively). Network meta-analysis confirmed that more patients reported response in sham acupuncture groups than in oral pharmacological placebo groups (odds ratio, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.30-2.72]). Corresponding analyses for continuous outcomes showed similar findings. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Sham acupuncture and sham surgery are associated with higher responder ratios than oral pharmacological placebos. Clinicians who treat patients with migraine should be aware that a relevant part of the overall effect they observe in practice might be due to nonspecific effects and that the size of such effects might differ between treatment modalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24126676     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  73 in total

1.  Association Between Placebo-Activated Neural Systems and Antidepressant Responses: Neurochemistry of Placebo Effects in Major Depression.

Authors:  Marta Peciña; Amy S B Bohnert; Magdalena Sikora; Erich T Avery; Scott A Langenecker; Brian J Mickey; Jon-Kar Zubieta
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 21.596

2.  Levetiracetam as preventive treatment in adults with migraine: an up-to-date systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis.

Authors:  Georgia Tsaousi; Chryssa Pourzitaki; Spyridon Siafis; Athanassios Kyrgidis; Vasilios Grosomanidis; Dimitrios Kouvelas; Georgios Papazisis
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 3.  Acupuncture for the prevention of episodic migraine.

Authors:  Klaus Linde; Gianni Allais; Benno Brinkhaus; Yutong Fei; Michael Mehring; Emily A Vertosick; Andrew Vickers; Adrian R White
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-06-28

4.  The Placebo Effect in Pain Therapies.

Authors:  Luana Colloca
Journal:  Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 13.820

5.  Integration of white matter network is associated with interindividual differences in psychologically mediated placebo response in migraine patients.

Authors:  Jixin Liu; Shaohui Ma; Junya Mu; Tao Chen; Qing Xu; Wanghuan Dun; Jie Tian; Ming Zhang
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-07-21       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 6.  [Placebo and nocebo : How can they be used or avoided?]

Authors:  E Hansen; N Zech; K Meissner
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 0.743

7.  Guided Imagery for Total Knee Replacement: Responses to an Audiobook Placebo Treatment.

Authors:  Wendy Umberger; Claire Burke Draucker; Ann Jacobson
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 1.967

Review 8.  Placebo Effects in Acupuncture.

Authors:  Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  Med Acupunct       Date:  2020-12-16

Review 9.  Toward a Mechanism-Based Approach to Pain Diagnosis.

Authors:  Daniel Vardeh; Richard J Mannion; Clifford J Woolf
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.820

10.  Migraine: Differential effects of placebos in migraine clinical trials.

Authors:  Peer C Tfelt-Hansen; Anders Hougaard
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2013-12-10       Impact factor: 42.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.