Nocebo and the contribution of psychosocial factors to the generation of pain

Frisaldi, Elisa; Barbiani, Diletta; Camerone, Eleonora Maria; Shaibani, Aziz

doi:10.1007/s00702-019-02104-x

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 943 articles were screened by title and abstract. Of these, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria (1994 and 2020) and were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis (9–35) (Figure 1). Twelve studies (10 published and two studies under review) reported data on the incidence of migraine attacks after placebo in individuals with migraine without aura (9–17,31,33), whereas 10 studies did so in healthy volunteers (18,19,22,23,25,27,29,30,32,34).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the magnitude of nocebo response differs across the studies reviewed in this study, thus showing variation in the ways that participants respond to nocebo effect, and with proper methodological strategies these effects can be mitigated. Recently, the effect of nocebo on generation of headache pain was reviewed (35). This study shows that psychosocial factors might play an important role in nocebo response (35).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, the effect of nocebo on generation of headache pain was reviewed (35). This study shows that psychosocial factors might play an important role in nocebo response (35). Here, we provided the first empirical evidence that nocebo affects individuals with migraine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is, therefore, relevant to consider what the probability would be for developing a spontaneous attack within a 12-h observational period. Of note, all included studies had exclusively enrolled individuals with episodic migraine, who reported between six and 76 attacks per year (9–35). Thus, it may be hypothesised that the incidence of migraine attacks after placebo is comparable to the probability of developing spontaneous attacks within the same observational period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nocebo response in human models of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover trials in migraine without aura and healthy volunteers

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Human models of migraine have been used for the past 30 years to test putative ‘trigger’ molecules and ascertain whether they induce migraine attacks in humans. However, nocebo effects using this model have never been systematically explored. Objective To assess the nocebo response rate in randomised clinical trials conducted at the Danish Headache Center, and in which human models of migraine were used. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed for studies of human models of migraine with a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover design that included data on the incidence of migraine attacks or headache after infusion of placebo. A total of 943 articles were screened by title and abstract. Of these, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria (published between 1994 and 2020) and were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for the incidence of migraine attacks or delayed headache after placebo infusion. Results Twenty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion: 12 studies reported data for adults with migraine (n = 182), whereas 16 studies reported data on healthy volunteers (n = 210). For adults with migraine, the incidence of migraine attacks after placebo was 8.1% (95% CI = 2.5–15.5%, I2 = 50.8%). The incidence of delayed headache was 25.9% (95% CI = 18.5–34.1%, I2 = 18.9%). For healthy volunteers, the incidence of migraine attacks after placebo was 0.5% (95% CI = 0.0–3.6%, I2 = 0.0%) while the incidence of delayed headache was 10.5% (95% CI = 4.8–17.6%, I2 = 45.2%). Conclusion The nocebo response in randomised, placebo-controlled two-way crossover trials with intravenous infusions with intravenous infusion of placebo in migraine is negligible. Future studies using human models of migraine can be conducted by assuming a nocebo response rate of 15.5%.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nocebo response in human models of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover trials in migraine without aura and healthy volunteers

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several biochemical factors, e.g., cholecystokinin and cyclooxygenase, have been involved in this process. In their review, Benedetti et al (2020) discuss old and new findings that illustrate and explain the interplay between biology and psychology in pain conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in the understanding and treatment of pain and headache

Dallel

2020

J Neural Transm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Nocebo Response in Pharmacologic Treatments of Primary Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Liu

Liang

et al. 2022

The Journal of Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature and magnitude of nocebo responses in primary headache disorders are still unknown. To assess the distribution and possible predictors of nocebo responses in primary headache treatments, databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from 1988 to December 31, 2020, for parallel‐group, double‐blind, randomized placebo‐controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments of primary headaches. The nocebo responses were calculated using a random effects meta‐analysis model. Subgroup and metaregression analyses were performed to determine the associations of study design and demographic characteristics with nocebo responses. A total of 178 randomized controlled trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. Prophylactic treatments elicited stronger nocebo responses than acute treatments. The majority of nocebo adverse events were mild to moderate in severity, with the nervous and digestive systems being the most commonly affected. There was a strong correlation between the active medication and control groups in terms of adverse events, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Long treatment duration, a high proportion of subjects receiving active medications, multicenter design, North America, high body mass index, women, previous treatment experiences, and a high proportion of patients with migraine headache with aura were all found to be significant positive predictors of nocebo responses, whereas the year of publication was found to be inversely related to them. Nocebo effects should be noticed for their contribution to discontinuation of or lack of adherence to active treatments. Clarifying these nocebo‐related risk factors can aid in their clinical prevention and management.

show abstract

Nocebo and the contribution of psychosocial factors to the generation of pain

Cited by 30 publications

References 79 publications

Nocebo response in human models of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover trials in migraine without aura and healthy volunteers

Nocebo response in human models of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover trials in migraine without aura and healthy volunteers

Advances in the understanding and treatment of pain and headache

The Nocebo Response in Pharmacologic Treatments of Primary Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About