Filipa Ladeira1, Marcelo Mendonça2,3, André Caetano2, Manuel Salavisa2, Henrique Delgado2, Ana Sofia Correia2,3, Miguel Viana-Baptista2,3. 1. Department of Neurology, Hospital Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Serviço de Neurologia, Hospital Egas Moniz, Rua da Junqueira 126, 1349-019, Lisbon, Portugal. filipaladeira@msn.com. 2. Department of Neurology, Hospital Egas Moniz, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Serviço de Neurologia, Hospital Egas Moniz, Rua da Junqueira 126, 1349-019, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. CEDOC Nova Medical School/ Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campo Mártires da Pátria 130, 1169-056, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient expectation of treatment outcome is one of the primary mechanisms underlying the placebo effect. In multiple sclerosis trials with symptomatic treatments, a robust placebo effect is observed, which might be related to patient expectations. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patient expectations regarding fampridine treatment influence the clinical response after 4 weeks and 6 months of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and carried out a prospective study from June 2015 to August 2017. Before treatment, patients completed a questionnaire including a scale evaluating their expectations regarding the treatment. The effect of baseline positive expectancy on the response status after 4 weeks and 6 months of treatment was analyzed through univariable and, when applicable, multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 consecutive patients were included in the study. At week 4, 37 (78.7%) patients were classified as responders; a one-point increase in the positive expectancy questionnaire was significantly associated with a fourfold increase in the likelihood of being a responder [OR = 4.020 (95% CI 1.082-14.933); p = 0.038]. At 6 months, 43 patients completed follow-up. The number of responders decreased to 28; at this point, positive expectancy at baseline was no longer associated with response status. CONCLUSION: Baseline positive expectancy regarding fampridine was determinant of the clinical response after 4 weeks of treatment. However, in the long term, fampridine efficacy was not dependent on expectations prior to treatment.
INTRODUCTION:Patient expectation of treatment outcome is one of the primary mechanisms underlying the placebo effect. In multiple sclerosis trials with symptomatic treatments, a robust placebo effect is observed, which might be related to patient expectations. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patient expectations regarding fampridine treatment influence the clinical response after 4 weeks and 6 months of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and carried out a prospective study from June 2015 to August 2017. Before treatment, patients completed a questionnaire including a scale evaluating their expectations regarding the treatment. The effect of baseline positive expectancy on the response status after 4 weeks and 6 months of treatment was analyzed through univariable and, when applicable, multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 consecutive patients were included in the study. At week 4, 37 (78.7%) patients were classified as responders; a one-point increase in the positive expectancy questionnaire was significantly associated with a fourfold increase in the likelihood of being a responder [OR = 4.020 (95% CI 1.082-14.933); p = 0.038]. At 6 months, 43 patients completed follow-up. The number of responders decreased to 28; at this point, positive expectancy at baseline was no longer associated with response status. CONCLUSION: Baseline positive expectancy regarding fampridine was determinant of the clinical response after 4 weeks of treatment. However, in the long term, fampridine efficacy was not dependent on expectations prior to treatment.
Authors: Andrew D Goodman; Theodore R Brown; Keith R Edwards; Lauren B Krupp; Randall T Schapiro; Ron Cohen; Lawrence N Marinucci; Andrew R Blight Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Paul Enck; Sibylle Klosterhalfen; Katja Weimer; Björn Horing; Stephan Zipfel Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Magne Arve Flaten; Per M Aslaksen; Peter S Lyby; Espen Bjørkedal Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Andrew D Goodman; Theodore R Brown; Lauren B Krupp; Randall T Schapiro; Steven R Schwid; Ron Cohen; Lawrence N Marinucci; Andrew R Blight Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-02-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alison Watson; Andrea Power; Christopher Brown; Wael El-Deredy; Anthony Jones Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 5.156
Authors: Jiehang Deng; Dongdong He; Jiahong Zhuo; Jian Zhao; Cheng Xiao; Xiaodong Kang; Sunlin Hu; Guosheng Gu; Chao Liu Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2020-02-29