Alexander Winkler1, Winfried Rief1. 1. University of Marburg, Department for Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Marburg, Germany.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the role of placebo response in the pharmacotherapy of primary insomnia, especially about the effect of placebo intake on objectively assessed outcome variables. Our aim was therefore to conduct an effect-size analysis of placebo conditions in randomized controlled drug trials addressing primary insomnia also including polysomnography. DESIGN: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, PQDT OPEN, OpenGREY, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Clinical Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The meta-analysis used a random effects model and was based on 32 studies reporting 82 treatment conditions covering a total of 3,969 participants. Special emphasis was given to the comparison of objective and subjective outcomes and the proportion of the placebo response to the drug response. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Effect sizes estimates (Hedges g) suggest that there is a small to moderate yet significant and robust placebo response reducing the symptoms of insomnia in terms of sleep onset latency (-0.35), total sleep time (0.42), wake after sleep onset (-0.29), sleep efficiency (0.31), subjective sleep onset latency (-0.29), subjective total sleep time (0.43), subjective wake after sleep onset (-0.32), subjective sleep efficiency (0.25) and sleep quality (0.31). Thus, the placebo response was also evident in objective, physiological (polysomnographic) variables. Our results indicate that 63.56% of the drug responses are achieved even in the placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In light of these strong placebo responses, future studies should investigate how to exploit placebo mechanisms in clinical practice.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the role of placebo response in the pharmacotherapy of primary insomnia, especially about the effect of placebo intake on objectively assessed outcome variables. Our aim was therefore to conduct an effect-size analysis of placebo conditions in randomized controlled drug trials addressing primary insomnia also including polysomnography. DESIGN: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, PQDT OPEN, OpenGREY, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Clinical Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The meta-analysis used a random effects model and was based on 32 studies reporting 82 treatment conditions covering a total of 3,969 participants. Special emphasis was given to the comparison of objective and subjective outcomes and the proportion of the placebo response to the drug response. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Effect sizes estimates (Hedges g) suggest that there is a small to moderate yet significant and robust placebo response reducing the symptoms of insomnia in terms of sleep onset latency (-0.35), total sleep time (0.42), wake after sleep onset (-0.29), sleep efficiency (0.31), subjective sleep onset latency (-0.29), subjective total sleep time (0.43), subjective wake after sleep onset (-0.32), subjective sleep efficiency (0.25) and sleep quality (0.31). Thus, the placebo response was also evident in objective, physiological (polysomnographic) variables. Our results indicate that 63.56% of the drug responses are achieved even in the placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In light of these strong placebo responses, future studies should investigate how to exploit placebo mechanisms in clinical practice.
Authors: Lynda Bélanger; Annie Vallières; Hans Ivers; Vincent Moreau; Gilles Lavigne; Charles M Morin Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Sarah C Lidstone; Michael Schulzer; Katherine Dinelle; Edwin Mak; Vesna Sossi; Thomas J Ruth; Raul de la Fuente-Fernández; Anthony G Phillips; A Jon Stoessl Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-08
Authors: G Hajak; A Rodenbeck; U Voderholzer; D Riemann; S Cohrs; F Hohagen; M Berger; E Rüther Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Andrew D Krystal; Alan Lankford; H Heith Durrence; Elizabeth Ludington; Philip Jochelson; Roberta Rogowski; Thomas Roth Journal: Sleep Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Thomas Roth; Catherine Coulouvrat; Goeran Hajak; Matthew D Lakoma; Nancy A Sampson; Victoria Shahly; Alicia C Shillington; Judith J Stephenson; James K Walsh; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2010-12-31 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: D Riemann; U Voderholzer; S Cohrs; A Rodenbeck; G Hajak; E Rüther; M H Wiegand; G Laakmann; T Baghai; W Fischer; M Hoffmann; F Hohagen; G Mayer; M Berger Journal: Pharmacopsychiatry Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.788
Authors: Patricia Murphy; Margaret Moline; David Mayleben; Russell Rosenberg; Gary Zammit; Kate Pinner; Shobha Dhadda; Quan Hong; Luigi Giorgi; Andrew Satlin Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Margaret M Lubas; Belinda N Mandrell; William L Greene; Carrie R Howell; Robbin Christensen; Cara I Kimberg; Chenghong Li; Kirsten K Ness; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Melissa M Hudson; Leslie L Robison; Kevin R Krull; Tara M Brinkman Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Sheila N Garland; Joseph A Roscoe; Charles E Heckler; Holly Barilla; Philip Gehrman; James C Findley; Anita R Peoples; Gary R Morrow; Charles Kamen; Michael L Perlis Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2015-12-31 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Ben Colagiuri; Louise Sharpe; Zahava Ambarchi; Nick Glozier; Delwyn Bartlett; Daniel S J Costa; Amelia Scott Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrew S Tubbs; Kathryn E R Kennedy; Pamela Alfonso-Miller; Chloe C A Wills; Michael A Grandner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.390