Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 2/2012

01-04-2012 | Headache (I Garza, Section Editor)

Nocebo in Headaches: Implications for Clinical Practice and Trial Design

Author: Dimos D. Mitsikostas

Published in: Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

The term nocebo refers to a harmful, unpleasant or undesirable adverse event a subject manifests after receiving an inert dummy drug or placebo. This reaction is originating by the patients fear and negative expectation that medical treatment most likely will produce unfavorable consequences instead of healing. Like placebo, nocebo shares key functions in pain conditions. Two recent systemic meta-analyses searched for nocebo in trials for prevention of migraine and tension-type headache and revealed that 1 out of 20 patients treated with placebo withdraw treatment due to adverse effects. Additionally, adverse events in placebo groups mirrored the adverse events expected of the active medication studied, confirming that pretrial suggestions induce the adverse events in placebo-treated patients. Therefore, nocebo reduces the study population by 10% and limits the treatment outcomes in randomized controlled trials for primary headaches. The potential implications of this substantial nocebo effect for both trial designing and clinical practice are discussed in this article.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Barsky AJ, Saintfort R, Rogers MP, Borus JF. Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA. 2002;287:622–7.PubMedCrossRef Barsky AJ, Saintfort R, Rogers MP, Borus JF. Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA. 2002;287:622–7.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Enck P, Benedetti F, Schedlowski M. New insights into the placebo and nocebo responses. Neuron. 2008;59:195–206.PubMedCrossRef Enck P, Benedetti F, Schedlowski M. New insights into the placebo and nocebo responses. Neuron. 2008;59:195–206.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD. Nocebo effects in multiple sclerosis trials: a meta-analysis. Mult Scler. 2010;16:816–28.PubMedCrossRef Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD. Nocebo effects in multiple sclerosis trials: a meta-analysis. Mult Scler. 2010;16:816–28.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference van Laarhoven AI, Vogelaar ML, Wilder-Smith OH, et al. Induction of nocebo and placebo effects on itch and pain by verbal suggestions. Pain. 2011;152:1486–94. Epub 2011 Feb 24.PubMedCrossRef van Laarhoven AI, Vogelaar ML, Wilder-Smith OH, et al. Induction of nocebo and placebo effects on itch and pain by verbal suggestions. Pain. 2011;152:1486–94. Epub 2011 Feb 24.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Varelmann D, Pancaro C, Cappiello EC, Camann WR. Nocebo-induced hyperalgesia during local anesthetic injection. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:868–70.PubMedCrossRef Varelmann D, Pancaro C, Cappiello EC, Camann WR. Nocebo-induced hyperalgesia during local anesthetic injection. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:868–70.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Colloca L, Sigaudo M, Benedetti F. The role of learning in nocebo and placebo effects. Pain. 2008;136:211–8.PubMedCrossRef Colloca L, Sigaudo M, Benedetti F. The role of learning in nocebo and placebo effects. Pain. 2008;136:211–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Benedetti F, Lanotte M, Lopiano L, Colloca L. When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect. Neuroscience. 2007 29;147:260–71. Benedetti F, Lanotte M, Lopiano L, Colloca L. When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect. Neuroscience. 2007 29;147:260–71.
9.
go back to reference Vase L, Robinson ME, Verne GN, Price DD. The contributions of suggestion, desire, and expectation to placebo effects in irritable bowel syndrome patients. An empirical investigation. Pain. 2003;105:17–25.PubMedCrossRef Vase L, Robinson ME, Verne GN, Price DD. The contributions of suggestion, desire, and expectation to placebo effects in irritable bowel syndrome patients. An empirical investigation. Pain. 2003;105:17–25.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Benedetti F, Amanzio M. The placebo response: How words and rituals change the patient's brain. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:413–9.PubMedCrossRef Benedetti F, Amanzio M. The placebo response: How words and rituals change the patient's brain. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84:413–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Benedetti F, Amanzio M. The neurobiology of placebo analgesia: from endogenous opioids to cholecystokinin. Prog Neurobiol. 1997;52:109–25.PubMedCrossRef Benedetti F, Amanzio M. The neurobiology of placebo analgesia: from endogenous opioids to cholecystokinin. Prog Neurobiol. 1997;52:109–25.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Casadio C, et al. Blockade of nocebo hyperalgesia by the cholecystokinin antagonist proglumide. Pain. 1997;71:135–40.PubMedCrossRef Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Casadio C, et al. Blockade of nocebo hyperalgesia by the cholecystokinin antagonist proglumide. Pain. 1997;71:135–40.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Vighetti S, Asteggiano G. The biochemical and neuroendocrine bases of the hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J Neurosci. 2006;26:12014–22.PubMedCrossRef Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Vighetti S, Asteggiano G. The biochemical and neuroendocrine bases of the hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J Neurosci. 2006;26:12014–22.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kong J, Gollub RL, Polich G, et al. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the neural mechanisms of hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J Neurosci. 2008;28:13354–62.PubMedCrossRef Kong J, Gollub RL, Polich G, et al. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the neural mechanisms of hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J Neurosci. 2008;28:13354–62.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Scott DJ, Stohler CS, Egnatuk CM, et al. Placebo and nocebo effects are defined by opposite opioid and dopaminergic responses. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65:220–31.PubMedCrossRef Scott DJ, Stohler CS, Egnatuk CM, et al. Placebo and nocebo effects are defined by opposite opioid and dopaminergic responses. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008;65:220–31.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference • Tracey I. Getting the pain you expect: mechanisms of placebo, nocebo and reappraisal effects in humans. Nat Med. 2010;16:1277-83. This is an extensive review of all biochemical and molecular mechanisms underlying nocebo and placebo.PubMedCrossRef • Tracey I. Getting the pain you expect: mechanisms of placebo, nocebo and reappraisal effects in humans. Nat Med. 2010;16:1277-83. This is an extensive review of all biochemical and molecular mechanisms underlying nocebo and placebo.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Evans WR. Headaches and the nocebo effect. Headache. 2003;43:1111–5. Evans WR. Headaches and the nocebo effect. Headache. 2003;43:1111–5.
18.
go back to reference Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med. 2011 Aug 23. [Epub ahead of print] Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med. 2011 Aug 23. [Epub ahead of print]
19.
go back to reference Merikangas KR, Cui L, Richardson AK, et al. Magnitude, impact, and stability of primary headache subtypes: 30 year prospective Swiss cohort study. BMJ. 2011;343:d5076.PubMedCrossRef Merikangas KR, Cui L, Richardson AK, et al. Magnitude, impact, and stability of primary headache subtypes: 30 year prospective Swiss cohort study. BMJ. 2011;343:d5076.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lipton RB. Chronic migraine, classification, differential diagnosis, and epidemiology. Headache. 2011;51 Suppl 2:77–83.PubMedCrossRef Lipton RB. Chronic migraine, classification, differential diagnosis, and epidemiology. Headache. 2011;51 Suppl 2:77–83.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Reuter U, Sanchez del Rio M, Carpay JA, et al. GSK headache masters program: placebo adverse events in headache trials: headache as an adverse event of placebo. Cephalalgia. 2003;23:496–503.PubMedCrossRef Reuter U, Sanchez del Rio M, Carpay JA, et al. GSK headache masters program: placebo adverse events in headache trials: headache as an adverse event of placebo. Cephalalgia. 2003;23:496–503.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Loder E, Goldstein R, Biondi D. Placebo effects in oral triptan trials: the scientific and ethical rationale for continued use of placebo controls. Cephalalgia. 2004;25:124–31.CrossRef Loder E, Goldstein R, Biondi D. Placebo effects in oral triptan trials: the scientific and ethical rationale for continued use of placebo controls. Cephalalgia. 2004;25:124–31.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference •• Amanzion M, Corazzini LL, Vase L, Benedetti F. A systematic review of adverse events in placebo groups of anti-migraine clinical trials. Pain 2009; 146: 261–269. This is a systematic review of placebo-controlled trials for migraine treatment (either symptomatic or preventive). The authors aimed to evaluate the AEs recorded by patients treated with specific class antimigraine agents in relation to the AEs recorded by the patients treated with placebo. They found that the AEs in both groups were closely similar, indicating that nocebo adverse events are not un-specific symptoms. In the contrary, nocebo consists of drug-related AEs that the patients have been told by the investigators that they may experience. This finding is in line with the expectation theory of placebo and nocebo.CrossRef •• Amanzion M, Corazzini LL, Vase L, Benedetti F. A systematic review of adverse events in placebo groups of anti-migraine clinical trials. Pain 2009; 146: 261–269. This is a systematic review of placebo-controlled trials for migraine treatment (either symptomatic or preventive). The authors aimed to evaluate the AEs recorded by patients treated with specific class antimigraine agents in relation to the AEs recorded by the patients treated with placebo. They found that the AEs in both groups were closely similar, indicating that nocebo adverse events are not un-specific symptoms. In the contrary, nocebo consists of drug-related AEs that the patients have been told by the investigators that they may experience. This finding is in line with the expectation theory of placebo and nocebo.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference •• Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis LI, Chalarakis NG. Nocebo is the enemy, not placebo. A meta-analysis of reported side effects after placebo treatment in headaches. Cephalalgia 2011;31:550-61. In this systematic review, all placebo-controlled randomized trials for the treatment of any primary headache, published in the last decade, were analyzed to estimate the pooled average of placebo-treated patients who experienced any AE, or discontinued treatment due to AE. One out 20 patients treated for prophylaxis of migraine was discontinued due to AEs, although treated with placebo. Nocebo dropout was equal in trials for TTH. This finding has essential significance for both clinical practice and trial designing.PubMedCrossRef •• Mitsikostas DD, Mantonakis LI, Chalarakis NG. Nocebo is the enemy, not placebo. A meta-analysis of reported side effects after placebo treatment in headaches. Cephalalgia 2011;31:550-61. In this systematic review, all placebo-controlled randomized trials for the treatment of any primary headache, published in the last decade, were analyzed to estimate the pooled average of placebo-treated patients who experienced any AE, or discontinued treatment due to AE. One out 20 patients treated for prophylaxis of migraine was discontinued due to AEs, although treated with placebo. Nocebo dropout was equal in trials for TTH. This finding has essential significance for both clinical practice and trial designing.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Amanzio M. Do we need a new procedure for the assessment of adverse events in anti-migraine clinical trials? Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov. 2011;6:41–7.PubMedCrossRef Amanzio M. Do we need a new procedure for the assessment of adverse events in anti-migraine clinical trials? Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov. 2011;6:41–7.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, et al. PREEMPT Chronic Migraine Study Group: OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phases of the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache. 2010;50:921–36.PubMedCrossRef Dodick DW, Turkel CC, DeGryse RE, et al. PREEMPT Chronic Migraine Study Group: OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: pooled results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phases of the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache. 2010;50:921–36.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Manzoni GC, Torelli P. Epidemiological classification and social impact of chronic headache. Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5 Suppl 1:S1–5.PubMedCrossRef Manzoni GC, Torelli P. Epidemiological classification and social impact of chronic headache. Intern Emerg Med. 2010;5 Suppl 1:S1–5.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Stovner LJ, Andree C. Prevalence of headache in Europe: a review for the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain. 2010;11:289–99.PubMedCrossRef Stovner LJ, Andree C. Prevalence of headache in Europe: a review for the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain. 2010;11:289–99.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD. A meta-analytic approach to estimating nocebo effects in neuropathic pain trials. J Neurol. 2011 Aug 3. [Epub ahead of print]. Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD. A meta-analytic approach to estimating nocebo effects in neuropathic pain trials. J Neurol. 2011 Aug 3. [Epub ahead of print].
31.
go back to reference de la Cruz M, Hui D, Parsons HA, Bruera E. Placebo and nocebo effects in randomized double-blind clinical trials of agents for the therapy for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:766–74.PubMedCrossRef de la Cruz M, Hui D, Parsons HA, Bruera E. Placebo and nocebo effects in randomized double-blind clinical trials of agents for the therapy for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:766–74.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Price DD, Craggs JG, Zhou Q, et al. Widespread hyperalgesia in irritable bowel syndrome is dynamically maintained by tonic visceral impulse input and placebo/nocebo factors: evidence from human psychophysics, animal models, and neuroimaging. NeuroImage. 2009;47:995–1001.PubMedCrossRef Price DD, Craggs JG, Zhou Q, et al. Widespread hyperalgesia in irritable bowel syndrome is dynamically maintained by tonic visceral impulse input and placebo/nocebo factors: evidence from human psychophysics, animal models, and neuroimaging. NeuroImage. 2009;47:995–1001.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Nonspecific side effects of oral contraceptives: nocebo or noise? Contraception. 2011;83:5–9.PubMedCrossRef Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Nonspecific side effects of oral contraceptives: nocebo or noise? Contraception. 2011;83:5–9.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Weissenfeld J, Stock S, Lüngen M, Gerber A. The nocebo effect: a reason for patients' non-adherence to generic substitution? Pharmazie. 2010;65:451–6.PubMed Weissenfeld J, Stock S, Lüngen M, Gerber A. The nocebo effect: a reason for patients' non-adherence to generic substitution? Pharmazie. 2010;65:451–6.PubMed
35.
go back to reference Vernia P, Di Camillo M, Foglietta T, et al. Diagnosis of lactose intolerance and the "nocebo" effect: the role of negative expectations. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42:616–9.PubMedCrossRef Vernia P, Di Camillo M, Foglietta T, et al. Diagnosis of lactose intolerance and the "nocebo" effect: the role of negative expectations. Dig Liver Dis. 2010;42:616–9.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Haga SB, Warner LR, O'Daniel J. The potential of a placebo/nocebo effect in pharmacogenetics. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12:158–62.PubMedCrossRef Haga SB, Warner LR, O'Daniel J. The potential of a placebo/nocebo effect in pharmacogenetics. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12:158–62.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Nocebo in Headaches: Implications for Clinical Practice and Trial Design
Author
Dimos D. Mitsikostas
Publication date
01-04-2012
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 1528-4042
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6293
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-011-0245-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 2/2012 Go to the issue

Pediatric Neurology (R Packer, Section Editor)

Narcolepsy in the Pediatric Population

Headache (I Garza, Section Editor)

Nummular Headache Update

Pediatric Neurology (R Packer, Section Editor)

Neurodiagnostic Techniques in Neonatal Critical Care