Nocebo effects in multiple sclerosis trials: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incidence and severity of nocebo responses in trials of symptomatic treatments (STs) and disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods: We conducted a systematic Medline search for all randomised, placebo-controlled MS trials published between 1989 and 2009. Meta-analysis of the incidence of nocebo responses was performed by pooling the percentage of placebo-treated patients that exhibited adverse events. Nocebo severity was calculated from the percentage of placebo-treated patients that dropped-out due to drug-related adverse events.

Results: Data were extracted from 56 DMT and 44 ST eligible trials. The pooled incidence of nocebo responses was 74.4% (95% CI: 69.92—88.30) in DMT trials and 25.3% (95% CI: 15.24—36.90) in ST trials and was significantly higher in the former (p < 0.0001). The pooled nocebo severity was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6—2.67) in DMT and 2.34% (95% CI: 1.54—3.29) in ST trials. Meta-regression analysis revealed a higher nocebo incidence in parallel design ST studies compared to crossover ones (p = 0.013) and a higher nocebo severity in phase II ST studies compared to phase III ones (p = 0.0001). Nocebo severity in DMT trials exhibited an association with the year of study publication (p = 0.011) and the frequency of drug administration (p = 0.0082).

Conclusions: Nocebo responses in MS trials are substantial and appear to have increased significantly in recent years with important implications for both trial design and clinical practice. Furthermore, nocebo responses exhibit an association with medication and trial-related factors.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis nocebo placebo meta-analysis meta-regression

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kennedy WP The nocebo reaction. Med Exp Int J Exp Med 1961; 95: 203-205.

Reeves RR , Ladner ME , Hart RH and Burke RS Nocebo effects with antidepressant clinical drug trial placebos. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2007; 29: 275-277.

Preston RA , Materson BJ , Reda DJ and Williams DW Placebo-associated blood pressure response and adverse effects in the treatment of hypertension: observations from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1449-1454.

Compston A. and Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2008; 372: 1502-1517.

Treadaway K. , Cutter G. , Salter A. , et al. Factors that influence adherence with disease modifying therapy in MS. J Neurol 2009; 256: 568-576.

Cunningham A. , Gottberg K. , von Koch L. and Hillert J. Non-adherence to interferon-beta therapy in Swedish patients with multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 2010; 121: 154-160.

Barsky AJ , Saintfort R. , Rogers MP and Borus JF Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA 2002; 287: 622-627.

DerSimonian R. and Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188.

Deeks JJ Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Brit Med J 2001; 323: 157-162.

10.

Egger M. , Davey Smith G. , Schneider M. and Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Brit Med J 1997; 315: 629-634.

11.

Rosenzweig P. , Brohier S. and Zipfel A. The placebo effect in healthy volunteers: influence of experimental conditions on the adverse events profile during phase I studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54: 579-583.

12.

Pogge RC The toxic placebo. I. Side and toxic effects reported during the administration of placebo medicine. Med Times 1963; 91: 773-778.

13.

Robinson DS and Rickels K. Concerns about clinical drug trials. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2000; 20: 593-596.

14.

Andrykowski MA and Redd WH Longitudinal analysis of the development of anticipatory nausea. J Consult Clin Psychol 1987; 55: 36-41.

15.

Wolf S. and Pinsky RM Effects of placebo administration and occurrence of toxic reactions. JAMA 1954; 155: 339-341.

16.

Davis C. , Ralevski E. , Kennedy SH and Neitzert C. The role of personality factors in the reporting of side effect complaints to moclobemide and placebo: a study of healthy male and female volunteers . J Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 15: 347-352.

17.

Uhlenhuth EH , Alexander PE , Dempsey GM , Jones W. , Coleman BS and Swiontek AM Medication side effects in anxious patients: negative placebo responses. J Affect Dis 1998 ; 47: 183-190.

18.

Enck P. , Benedetti F. and Schedlowski M. New insights into the placebo and nocebo responses. Neuron 2008; 59: 195-206.

19.

Benedetti F. , Amanzio M. , Vighetti S. and Asteggiano G. The biochemical and neuroendocrine basis of the hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J Neurosci 2006; 26: 12014-12022.

20.

Beiske AG , Svensson E. , Sandanger I. , et al. Depression and anxiety amongst multiple sclerosis patients. Eur J Neurol 2008; 15: 239-245.

21.

Flaten MA , Simonsen T. and Olsen H. Drug-related information generates placebo and nocebo responses that modify the drug response. Psychosom Med 1999; 61: 250-255.

22.

Benedetti F. , Lanotte M. , Lopiano L. and Colloca L. When words are painful: unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect. Neuroscience 2007; 147: 260-271.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

2.81 MB

1.90 MB

0.08 MB

0.15 MB