Ellen W Freeman1, Kristine E Ensrud, Joseph C Larson, Katherine A Guthrie, Janet S Carpenter, Hadine Joffe, Katherine M Newton, Barbara Sternfeld, Andrea Z LaCroix. 1. From the Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology and Psychiatry (Freeman), Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Epidemiology and Community Health (Ensrud), Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Health System, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Medicine (Ensrud), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; MsFlash Data Coordinating Center (Larson, Guthrie), Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; School of Nursing (Carpenter), Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana; Department of Psychiatry (Joffe), Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Psychosocial (Joffe) Dana Farber Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Group Health Research Institute (Newton), Seattle, Washington; Division of Research (Sternfeld), Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland, California; Women's Health Center, Family and Preventive Medicine (LaCroix), University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the time course, duration of improvement, and clinical predictors of placebo response in treatment of menopausal hot flashes. METHODS: Data were pooled from two trials conducted in the Menopausal Strategies: Finding Lasting Answers to Symptoms and Health network, providing a combined placebo group (n = 247) and a combined active treatment group (n = 297). Participants recorded hot flash frequency in diaries twice daily during treatment (Weeks 0-8) and subsequent follow-up (Weeks 9-11). The primary outcome variable was clinically significant improvement, defined as a 50% or greater decrease in hot flash frequency from baseline and calculated for each week in the study. Subgroups were defined a priori using standard clinical definitions for significant improvement and partial improvement. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants were evaluated as predictors of improvement. RESULTS: Clinically significant improvement with placebo accrued each treatment week, with 33% significantly improved at Week 8. Of placebo responders who were improved at both Weeks 4 and 8, 77% remained clinically improved at Week 11 after treatment ended. Independent predictors of significant placebo improvement in the final multivariable model were African American race (odds ratio [OR] = 5.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.41-13.07, p < .001), current smokers (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.05-5.06, p = .038), and hot flash severity in screening (OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.00-2.10, p = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant improvement with placebo accrued throughout treatment with a time course similar to improvement with active drug. A meaningful number of participants in the placebo group sustained a clinically significant response after stopping placebo pills. The results suggest that nonspecific effects are important components of treatment and warrant further studies to optimize their contributions in clinical care.
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the time course, duration of improvement, and clinical predictors of placebo response in treatment of menopausal hot flashes. METHODS: Data were pooled from two trials conducted in the Menopausal Strategies: Finding Lasting Answers to Symptoms and Health network, providing a combined placebo group (n = 247) and a combined active treatment group (n = 297). Participants recorded hot flash frequency in diaries twice daily during treatment (Weeks 0-8) and subsequent follow-up (Weeks 9-11). The primary outcome variable was clinically significant improvement, defined as a 50% or greater decrease in hot flash frequency from baseline and calculated for each week in the study. Subgroups were defined a priori using standard clinical definitions for significant improvement and partial improvement. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants were evaluated as predictors of improvement. RESULTS: Clinically significant improvement with placebo accrued each treatment week, with 33% significantly improved at Week 8. Of placebo responders who were improved at both Weeks 4 and 8, 77% remained clinically improved at Week 11 after treatment ended. Independent predictors of significant placebo improvement in the final multivariable model were African American race (odds ratio [OR] = 5.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.41-13.07, p < .001), current smokers (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.05-5.06, p = .038), and hot flash severity in screening (OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.00-2.10, p = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant improvement with placebo accrued throughout treatment with a time course similar to improvement with active drug. A meaningful number of participants in the placebo group sustained a clinically significant response after stopping placebo pills. The results suggest that nonspecific effects are important components of treatment and warrant further studies to optimize their contributions in clinical care.
Authors: Maura K Whiteman; Catherine A Staropoli; Patricia W Langenberg; Robert J McCarter; Kristen H Kjerulff; Jodi A Flaws Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: F M Quitkin; J W Stewart; P J McGrath; E Nunes; K Ocepek-Welikson; E Tricamo; J G Rabkin; D F Klein Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Susan D Reed; Andrea Z LaCroix; Garnet L Anderson; Kristine E Ensrud; Bette Caan; Janet S Carpenter; Lee Cohen; Susan J Diem; Ellen W Freeman; Hadine Joffe; Joseph C Larson; Susan M McCurry; Caroline M Mitchell; Katherine M Newton; Barbara Sternfeld; Katherine A Guthrie Journal: Menopause Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Sarah Ballou; Ted J Kaptchuk; William Hirsch; Judy Nee; Johanna Iturrino; Kathryn T Hall; John M Kelley; Vivian Cheng; Irving Kirsch; Eric Jacobson; Lisa Conboy; Anthony Lembo; Roger B Davis Journal: Trials Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Carolyn C Ee; Sharmala Thuraisingam; Marie V Pirotta; Simon D French; Charlie C Xue; Helena J Teede Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 3.240