Abstract
Placebo appears to be a real neurobiological phenomenon that has evolved through the selection pressure to be able to heal ourselves. The complex language and social structures of humans means that we can attribute meaning to therapeutic encounters with culturally sanctioned authority figures and we can use our attachment to such figures to generate hope for recovery. Different mechanisms may be involved in the neurobiological aspect of placebo including anxiety, learning, conditioning as well as individual genetic variation. Examination of the published work shows that while some trials do seem to indicate a specific mode of action for homeopathic remedies other trials do not and this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the trial design stage. A clinical trial that includes both a placebo group and a non-participating control arm is the most powerful design for separating the non-specific and polymorphic placebo effect from the specific effects of trial medication. The control variables in a trial of homeopathic medication should also include the process of consultation as this may assume a meaning for the individual that can also be associated with a placebo effect.
Introduction
It is a commonly held belief that homeopathy is ‘nothing more’ than a placebo effect, a turn of phrase which seems to dismiss as ineffective both homeopathy and the role of the placebo in healing.
The aim of this short report is to explore the relationship between homeopathy and placebo, how these are connected to self-healing and how we can design a clinical trial to measure these interconnected effects.
Recent insights into the changes associated with placebo may explain why the placebo response trait could be positively selected for during our evolutionary history: ‘It is becoming ever more apparent that ‘the placebo effect’ is polymorphic in both its trigger and its expression, and that the mechanisms for placebo responses within the body are diverse. It is also clear that in all societies healing modalities have developed to maximize the placebo response in an attempt to overcome assaults to well being. This raises the question as to whether the placebo response, like other self-healing mechanisms, may be an evolutionary adaptation.’
1
Methods
The evidence for this review was gathered from a search of the PubMed database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), using the terms ‘homeopathy’, ‘self-healing’ and ‘placebo’, which yielded 19 published papers.
In order to review the trial design of published trials of homeopathy with a non-treatment group, a PubMed search was conducted using the search terms ‘homeopathy’ and ‘clinical trials’ with the filter ‘last five years’ and excluding surveys with no placebo, animals and plant studies. This generated 41 papers for analysis.
In order to find material about trials that show a specific effect for homeopathy, a PubMed search using the terms ‘homeopathy’ + ‘specific’ and filtered to show clinical trials over the last five years in human subject returned only 10 studies.
Additional inspiration and material was sourced at the inaugural meeting of the Pain Medicine Section of the Royal Society of Medicine ‘The role of the placebo in clinical care’ which was held on Friday 18 November 2011.
Professor Atholl Johnston provided the link to the data on the discovery of the genetic basis for the placebo effect in IBS patients. The information about homeopathy was cited using books from the author’s own library and details are included in the bibliography.
Genetic individuality
The individual nature of each patient's response has some basis in genetic variation and this is identified as a fruitful new avenue of research by Benedetti and Amanzio. 2 In a recent study from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre (BIDMC) and Harvard Medical School (HMS), scientists claim to have identified genetic differences between people who respond to placebos during trials and those who do not. 3
Placebo, semiotics and meaning
Medical or therapeutic treatment happens to unique individuals, each with their own interpretation of the experience. Walach 4 recognizes that the individual psychological and psychosomatic receptive action on the part of the patient is relevant to therapeutic success.
Meissner et al. 5 confirms that the placebo effect is ‘a real neurobiological phenomenon and that the brain's “inner pharmacy” is a critical determinant for the occurrence of psychobiological and behavioral changes relevant to healing processes and wellbeing’.
Meissner 6 proposes that verbal suggestions during placebo interventions may activate association networks in the brain that store memories of the appropriate autonomic response. Organ functions regulated by the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) including the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and pulmonary systems are amenable to both placebo and nocebo interventions.
Benedetti and how placebos change the patient's brain
The 2011 review of neurobiological findings by Benedetti et al. 7 provides a compelling view of placebo as a psychosocial context effect where social stimuli such as words and rituals of the therapeutic act may change the chemistry and circuitry of the patient's brain. Benedetti et al. show that drugs are administered into a complex biochemical environment that varies according to the patient's cognitive/affective state and previous exposure to other pharmacological agents. The mechanisms activated by placebo are the same as those activated by drugs, which suggests a cognitive/affective interference with drug actions.
Rather than one common mechanism of action, they suggest that there is a whole ‘melting pot’ of different placebo effects operate at different times and under different circumstances. Sometimes anxiety is modulated, at other times reward mechanisms are involved and in other circumstances different types of learning, conditioning or even genetic variants may play a role in placebo responsiveness.
Placebo in relation to evolution
The role of expectation of benefit and the hope of healing have also been examined by Benedetti and Amanzio. 2 The expectation of future events is known to modulate anxiety and to induce physiological changes through reward mechanisms. The nocebo effect, which is the opposite of the placebo effect, provides some of the best evidence of the role that anxiety plays in placebo responses.
There is a survival value to the ability to prepare the body to anticipate and cope with a future event. The main purpose of perception is to help predict the future, 8 if expectations about the future change the body's defensive emotional, behavioural and physiological responses then placebo responsiveness could be seen as a trait favoured by natural selection.
From the evolutionary perspective individuals who can protect themselves, heal themselves and recuperate from infections, injury and illness are more likely to survive and reproduce and therefore pass these adaptive traits on to their offspring.
The connection between illness and disease
One of the themes of this approach is the distinction between disease and illness. Disease may be considered to be patho-physiological whereas illness is phenomenological. Illness is the lived experience (emotions) of detriment to health including the symptomatic manifestation of disease. Miller et al. 9 suggest that the placebo effect operates predominantly by producing symptomatic relief of illness rather than modifying the physiology of disease.
The role of the ‘healer’ in placebo
Because the symptoms of illness have themselves a survival value, it is reasonable to suppose that it will only be ‘safe’ to ‘turn them off’ when sanctioned by a ‘healer’ or practitioner. ‘From a psychodynamic perspective the healer’s authority and ability to comfort may be a projection of parental care, operating by a process of transference.’
10
The context of the clinical encounter and the relationship between the healer and the patient are imbued with meaning and enshrined in ritual. Dr Cecil Helman 12 relates how his consulting room is a type of stage-set where small human dramas are played out every day. ‘Props, costumes, sets and a precise choreography’ achieve the creation of a ‘certain atmosphere of belief and expectation’.
Self-healing and homeopathy
‘We are inclined to attribute recovery from disease to the ministrations of healers when, in point of fact, it is often due to self-limiting diseases and the automatic natural healing of the organism.’
9
It is important to distinguish interpersonal healing from two other forms of healing, natural healing and technological healing, because homeopathy is often described as ‘natural’ and perceived as an alternative to ‘technological’ healing options: ‘Natural healing is the spontaneous or automatic response of the body to disease or injury, exemplified by internal mechanisms of fighting infection and wound healing. Technological healing consists of the full array of medical and surgical treatment that have pharmacological or physiological properties capable of promoting cure, disease control, or symptomatic relief.’
9
Benedetti has explored the role of the prefrontal cortex in placebo responses and concluded that if prefrontal functioning is impaired, placebo responses are reduced or totally lacking, as occurs in dementia of the Alzheimer's type. 7
The homeopathic clinical encounter will involve healing on many levels as there will be interpersonal transactions including psychodynamic effects, the ritual associated with consultation and perhaps lifestyle advice and education. The patients may also be receiving concurrent technological healing from their medical practitioners as well as being prescribed a homeopathic preparation to aid ‘natural healing’.
The philosophy of homeopathy
The philosophy of homeopathy is built around the concept of vital force, this is understood to be a dynamic life force which ‘steers all the functions of life’.
13
The concept of vital force was introduced by Hahnemann in the early editions of the Organon,
14
and is based on the concept of ‘Vitalism’ which existed at that time. ‘The task of the vital force is to maintain harmony and order in the organism. Every component of the organism, every organ and every cell is influenced and guarded by the vital force. The vital force protects us from ill.’
13
‘The goal of homoeopathic treatment is not to directly remove or suppress a symptom rather to strengthen and harmonize the vital force.’
13
‘Every agent that acts upon the vitality, every medicine, deranges more or less the vital forces, and causes a certain alteration in the health of the individual for a longer or shorter period. This is termed primary action. Although a product of the medicine and vital powers conjointly, it is principally due to the former power. To its action our vital force endeavors to oppose its own energy. This resistant action is a property, is indeed an automatic action of our life-preserving power, which goes by the name of secondary action or counteraction.’
15
‘By means of this manipulation of crude drugs are produced preparations which only in this way reach the full capacity to forcibly influence the suffering parts of the sick organism.’ §270
1
4
‘The non-specific therapeutic effects of the doctor-patient relationship are likely to be increased by the patient’s expectations of the homeopathic method which meshes with the specific therapeutic effects of the medicines.’
Self-healing and homeopathy
It is clear that homeopathy includes the concept of self-healing in its philosophy and practice, and there is a recognition that the ability to self-regulate or return to health is innate in humans. Homeopaths attribute this to a ‘vital force’ and believe that this innate process can be aided by the administration of a specially prepared ‘remedy’ that supports the body in the process.
PubMed search for homeopathy.
Filters activated: ‘published in the last 5 years’, ‘Clinical Trial’. Animal and plant studies excluded as well as studies based upon a questionnaire where no placebo controlled trial occurred.
Designing a clinical trial to measure the true placebo effect
An important question remains as to how we separate and measure the specific ‘medicine’ effects from the non-specific ‘brain’ effects when we attempt to evaluate homeopathy?
This dilemma was highlighted as early as 1995 11 when it was suggested that most authors confuse the perceived placebo effect with the true placebo effect. The true placebo effect can only be identified by including an untreated control group in clinical trials. By doing so the other nonspecific effects that contribute to the perceived placebo effect (such as natural course, regression to the mean, other time effects and unidentified parallel interventions), can be excluded.
Clinical trials
Two types of trial are therefore of interest when considering these issues: those trials of homeopathy that compare a placebo group, active drug group with a no treatment group and trials that seek to reproduce specific effects of homeopathic remedies.
In order to investigate the first group I conducted a PubMed search of published work in the last five years using the keywords Homeopathy and Clinical Trials, excluding surveys with no placebo, and those with animal and plant subjects. Forty trials were identified of which only three (7.5%) included a non-intervention group.
This analysis of the published work shows that only a small percentage of trials of homeopathic medicine use a non-participating control group and that that this kind of group may be used for different reasons. Future studies of homeopathy should seek to include an untreated control group in order to help distinguish the true placebo effect from other nonspecific effects.
Trials that seek to reproduce specific effects of homeopathic remedies
PubMed search for ‘homeopathy’ + ‘specific’.
The eczema study 17 showed that both homeopathic and conventional treatment groups improved similarly over a 12-month period but as this was a observational study of a cohort there was no control group and no placebo.
A migraine study 18 showed improvement for patients seeking homeopathic relief but the study was designed to observe real-life conditions and did not aim to determine the specific effect of a homeopathic remedy. The study was also not designed to measure the placebo effect.
The fifth study from the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics; Charité University Medical Center; D-10098 Berlin, Germany, concluded that while their results confirm the toxicological and clinical effects of Galphimia glauca compared to placebo, the ICCH criteria for proving symptoms were not suitable to distinguish between specific and unspecific symptoms.
The work of Bell et al.19,20 explores the role of electroencephalography (EEG) as a sensitive tool for measuring the specific changes due to the administration of homeopathic remedies.
Walach et al. take the most direct approach to the question of specific vs. non-specific symptoms of homeopathy. The 2001 study of the effects of homeopathic Belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers 21 tested the hypothesis that symptoms patterns are due to specific effects of a homeopathic remedy but found no indication that Belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo.
This was followed in 2004 by a pilot study using a small number of participants and the remedy Cantharis 22 showed that homeopathic proving symptoms appeared to be specific but the trial needed replication. This was achieved in 2008 2 3 and 2009 2 4 when they used a three-armed, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study design in which volunteers took either one of two homoeopathic remedies, Natrum muriaticum or Arsenicum album in 30CH or identical placebo. Their main outcome parameter was the number of remedy-specific symptoms per group. They concluded that homeopathic remedies do produce different symptoms from placebo.
The specific effects of the homeopathic consultation itself have been examined by Brien et al. 25 who conducted a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial in patients with active stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They concluded that the impact of the homeopathic consultation is of clinical relevance to patients and clinicians and that a further study would be justified.
