-
Mitochondrion Nov 2018Are the symptoms of autism caused by a treatable metabolic syndrome that traces to the abnormal persistence of a normal, alternative functional state of mitochondria? A... (Review)
Review
Are the symptoms of autism caused by a treatable metabolic syndrome that traces to the abnormal persistence of a normal, alternative functional state of mitochondria? A small clinical trial published in 2017 suggests this is possible. Based on a new unifying theory of pathogenesis for autism called the cell danger response (CDR) hypothesis, this study of 10 boys, ages 5-14years, showed that all 5 boys who received antipurinergic therapy (APT) with a single intravenous dose of suramin experienced improvements in all the core symptoms of autism that lasted for 5-8weeks. Language, social interaction, restricted interests, and repetitive movements all improved. Two children who were non-verbal spoke their first sentences. None of these improvements were observed in the placebo group. Larger and longer studies are needed to confirm this promising discovery. This review introduces the concept of M2 (anti-inflammatory) and M1 (pro-inflammatory) mitochondria that are polarized along a functional continuum according to cell stress. The pathophysiology of the CDR, the complementary functions of M1 and M2 mitochondria, relevant gene-environment interactions, and the metabolic underpinnings of behavior are discussed as foundation stones for understanding the improvements in ASD behaviors produced by antipurinergic therapy in this small clinical trial.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adolescent; Autistic Disorder; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Male; Mitochondria; Placebos; Purinergic Antagonists; Suramin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29253638
DOI: 10.1016/j.mito.2017.12.007 -
PLoS Medicine Sep 2020Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their...
BACKGROUND
Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.
CONCLUSIONS
We encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.
Topics: Checklist; Humans; Placebos; Research Design; Research Personnel; Research Report; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32956344
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003294 -
Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae... Mar 2021
Topics: Humans; Antiviral Agents; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Evidence-Based Medicine; Placebos; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 33782781
DOI: 10.1007/s00005-021-00612-x -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Aug 2019Over the past decade, the mechanisms underlying placebo effects have begun to be identified. At the same time, the placebo response appears to have increased in... (Review)
Review
Over the past decade, the mechanisms underlying placebo effects have begun to be identified. At the same time, the placebo response appears to have increased in pharmacological trials and marked placebo effects are found in neurostimulation and surgical trials, thereby posing the question whether non-pharmacological interventions should be placebo-controlled to a greater extent. In this narrative review we discuss how the knowledge of placebo mechanisms may help to improve placebo control in pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials. We review the psychological, neurobiological, and genetic mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia and outline the current problems and potential solutions to the challenges with placebo control in trials on pharmacological, neurostimulation, and surgical interventions. We particularly focus on how patients' perception of the therapeutic intervention, and their expectations towards treatment efficacy may help develop more precise placebo controls and blinding procedures and account for the contribution of placebo factors to the efficacy of active treatments. Finally, we discuss how systematic investigations into placebo mechanisms across various pain conditions and types of treatment are needed in order to 'personalise' the placebo control to the specific pathophysiology and interventions, which may ultimately lead to identification of more effective treatment for pain patients. In conclusion this review shows that it is important to understand how patients' perception and expectations influence the efficacy of active and placebo treatments in order to improve the test of new treatments. Importantly, this applies not only to assessment of drug efficacy but also to non-pharmacological trials on surgeries and stimulation procedures.
Topics: Analgesia; Humans; Pain; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30915982
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.040 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Risperidone is the first new-generation antipsychotic drug made available in the market in its generic form.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical effects, safety and cost-effectiveness of risperidone compared with placebo for treating schizophrenia.
SEARCH METHODS
On 19th October 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We checked the references of all included studies and contacted industry and authors of included studies for relevant studies and data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing oral risperidone with placebo treatments for people with schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and the 95% CI. We created a 'Summary of findings table' using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 15 studies (N = 2428). Risk of selection bias is unclear in most of the studies, especially concerning allocation concealment. Other areas of risk such as missing data and selective reporting also caused some concern, although not affected on the direction of effect of our primary outcome, as demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Many of the included trials have industry sponsorship of involvement. Nonetheless, generally people in the risperidone group are more likely to achieve a significant clinical improvement in mental state (6 RCTs, N = 864, RR 0.64, CI 0.52 to 0.78, very low-quality evidence). The effect withstood, even when three studies with >50% attrition rate were removed from the analysis (3 RCTs, N = 589, RR 0.77, CI 0.67 to 0.88). Participants receiving placebo were less likely to have a clinically significant improvement on Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) than those receiving risperidone (4 RCTs, N = 594, RR 0.69, CI 0.57 to 0.83, very low-quality evidence). Overall, the risperidone group was 31% less likely to leave early compared to placebo group (12 RCTs, N = 2261, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78, low-quality evidence), but Incidence of significant extrapyramidal side effect was more likely to occur in the risperidone group (7 RCTs, N = 1511, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.15, very low-quality evidence).When risperidone and placebo were augmented with clozapine, there is no significant differences between groups for clinical response as defined by a less than 20% reduction in PANSS/BPRS scores (2 RCTs, N = 98, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.42, low-quality evidence) and attrition (leaving the study early for any reason) (3 RCTs, N = 167, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.42, low quality evidence). One study measured clinically significant responses using the CGI, no effect was evident (1 RCT, N = 68, RR 1.12 95% CI 0.87 to 1.44, low quality evidence). No data were available for extrapyramidal adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, risperidone appears to be benefitial in improving mental state compared with placebo, but it also causes more adverse events. Eight out of the 15 included trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies. The currently available evidence isvery low to low quality.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Placebos; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 27977041
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006918.pub3 -
International Review of Neurobiology 2018
Topics: Animals; Biomedical Research; Humans; Placebo Effect; Placebos
PubMed: 29681338
DOI: 10.1016/S0074-7742(18)30027-8 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Apr 2019Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a syndrome characterized by gastrointestinal and extraintestinal manifestations triggered after gluten ingestion in the absence... (Review)
Review
Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a syndrome characterized by gastrointestinal and extraintestinal manifestations triggered after gluten ingestion in the absence of celiac disease and wheat allergy. Because of the lack of biomarkers for NCGS diagnosis, the cornerstone for its assessment is a single- or double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) gluten challenge. However, there are some non-standardized points in the diagnostic approach proposed by the experts. This complicate comparisons among the results published by different research groups. The gluten vehicle and placebo must be indistinguishable from each other, which entails sensory and technological evaluations of the designed gluten vehicle and placebo products. At the moment, there is no standardized method for the preparation of the gluten vehicle and placebo for carrying out DBPC gluten challenges for NCGS assessment. This review focuses on the challenges that researchers have to face, either for the development of an accepted gluten vehicle and placebo or for identifying NCGS cases on the basis of DBPC gluten challenges.
Topics: Food Hypersensitivity; Glutens; Humans; Placebos; Wheat Hypersensitivity
PubMed: 31035487
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55050117 -
International Review of Neurobiology 2018The analgesic placebo effect is well documented by numerous studies. Many important influencing factors, however, are yet to be discovered. In the arena of placebo... (Review)
Review
The analgesic placebo effect is well documented by numerous studies. Many important influencing factors, however, are yet to be discovered. In the arena of placebo effects and clinical implications, expectancies play a central role. Expectancies are shaped by processes of classical and social learning as well as verbal instructions and are strongly related to emotional factors. Expectancies trigger a cascade of endogenous opioids and non-opioids, which alter the experience of pain. For clinical application it is important to know, that placebo research yields ethical possibilities to use placebo effects without deception and without using placebos. Since placebo effects contribute to responses to active analgesics, it is feasible to enhance patients' benefits from pain treatments by increasing the additional placebo effect. There are several possibilities to use the placebo effects via shaping and adapting information about analgesic medication and via associating medication intake with a positive context. A positive patient-clinician communication atmosphere is very important to generate clinically meaningful placebo effects in pain medicine.
Topics: Analgesics; Humans; Pain; Placebo Effect; Placebos
PubMed: 30146044
DOI: 10.1016/bs.irn.2018.07.015 -
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2020Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a... (Review)
Review
Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.
Topics: Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 32145797
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33137-X -
Psychological Medicine Oct 2020Placebos are not inert, but exert measurable biological effects. The placebo response in psychiatric illness is important and clinically relevant, but remains poorly... (Review)
Review
Placebos are not inert, but exert measurable biological effects. The placebo response in psychiatric illness is important and clinically relevant, but remains poorly understood. In this paper, we review current knowledge about the placebo response in psychiatric medicine and identify research directions for the future. We argue that more research is needed into the placebo response in psychiatric medicine for three broad reasons. First, awareness of factors that cause placebo response, for whom, and when, within clinical trials will allow us to better evidence efficacy of new treatments. Second, by understanding how placebo mechanisms operate in the clinic, we can take advantage of these to optimise the effects of current treatments. Finally, exploring the biological mechanisms of placebo effects might reveal tractable targets for novel treatment development.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Mental Disorders; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Psychiatry
PubMed: 33028433
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291720003633