-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Dornase alfa is currently used as a mucolytic to treat pulmonary disease (the major cause of morbidity and mortality) in cystic fibrosis. It reduces mucus viscosity in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dornase alfa is currently used as a mucolytic to treat pulmonary disease (the major cause of morbidity and mortality) in cystic fibrosis. It reduces mucus viscosity in the lungs, promoting improved clearance of secretions. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of dornase alfa in cystic fibrosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity compared to placebo or other medications that improve airway clearance, and to identify any adverse events associated with its use.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Register: 12 October 2020. Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. Date of most recent search: 08 February 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing dornase alfa to placebo, standard therapy or other medications that improve airway clearance.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Authors independently assessed trials against the inclusion criteria; two authors carried out analysis of methodological quality and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the level of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The searches identified 74 trials, of which 19 (2565 participants) met our inclusion criteria. 15 trials compared dornase alfa to placebo or no dornase alfa (2447 participants); two compared daily dornase to hypertonic saline (32 participants); one compared daily dornase alfa to hypertonic saline and alternate day dornase alfa (48 participants); one compared dornase alfa to mannitol and the combination of both drugs (38 participants). Trial duration varied from six days to three years. Dornase alfa compared to placebo or no treatment Dornase alfa probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV) at one month (four trials, 248 participants), three months (one trial, 320 participants; moderate-quality evidence), six months (one trial, 647 participants; high-quality evidence) and two years (one trial, 410 participants). Limited low-quality evidence showed treatment may make little or no difference in quality of life. Dornase alfa probably reduced the number of pulmonary exacerbations in trials of up to two years (moderate-quality evidence). One trial that examined the cost of care, including the cost of dornase alfa, found that the cost savings from dornase alfa offset 18% to 38% of the medication costs. Dornase alfa: daily versus alternate day One cross-over trial (43 children) found little or no difference between treatment regimens for lung function, quality of life or pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence). Dornase alfa compared to other medications that improve airway clearance Results for these comparisons were mixed. One trial (43 children) showed dornase alfa may lead to a greater improvement in FEV compared to hypertonic saline (low-quality evidence), and one trial (23 participants) reported little or no differences in lung function between dornase alfa and mannitol or dornase alfa and dornase alfa plus mannitol (low-quality evidence). One trial (23 participants) found dornase alfa may improve quality of life compared to dornase alfa plus mannitol (low-quality evidence); other comparisons found little or no difference in this outcome (low-quality evidence). No trials in any comparison reported any difference between groups in the number of pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence). When all comparisons are assessed, dornase alfa did not cause significantly more adverse effects than other treatments, except voice alteration and rash.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to show that, compared with placebo, therapy with dornase alfa may improve lung function in people with cystic fibrosis in trials lasting from one month to two years. There was a decrease in pulmonary exacerbations in trials of six months or longer, probably due to treatment. Voice alteration and rash appear to be the only adverse events reported with increased frequency in randomised controlled trials. There is not enough evidence to firmly conclude if dornase alfa is superior to other hyperosmolar agents in improving lung function.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Cystic Fibrosis; Deoxyribonuclease I; Disease Progression; Expectorants; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Infant; Mannitol; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Saline Solution, Hypertonic; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 33735508
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001127.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane review published in 2015. Around half of people with epilepsy will not achieve seizure freedom on their first antiepileptic drug; many will require add-on therapy. Around a third of people fail to achieve complete seizure freedom despite multiple antiepileptic drugs. Lacosamide has been licenced as an add-on therapy for drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of lacosamide as an add-on therapy for children and adults with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (22 August 2019): the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 20 August 2019), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no language restrictions. We contacted UCB Pharma (sponsors of lacosamide).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of add-on lacosamide in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology, assessing the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; adverse events; quality of life; and cognitive changes. The primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) for each outcome presented with 99% confidence intervals (CI), except for 50% or greater seizure reduction, seizure freedom and treatment withdrawal which were presented with 95% CIs. We performed subgroup analyses according to lacosamide dose and sensitivity analyses according to population age, whereby data from children were excluded from the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (2199 participants). The risk of bias for all studies was low to unclear. All studies were placebo-controlled and assessed doses from 200 mg to 600 mg per day. One study evaluated lacosamide in children; all other studies were in adults. Trial duration ranged from 24 to 26 weeks. All studies used adequate methods of randomisation and were double-blind. Overall, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was judged as moderate to high, with the exception of seizure freedom which was low. The RR for a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.79 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 5 studies; 2199 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for seizure freedom for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 2.27 (95% CI 1.35 to 3.83; 5 studies; 2199 participants; low-certainty evidence). The RR for treatment withdrawal for all doses of lacosamide compared with placebo was 1.57 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.98; 5 studies; 2199 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The estimated effect size for most outcomes did not change considerably following sensitivity analysis. For seizure freedom, however, the RR nearly doubled upon the exclusion of data from children (RR 4.04, 95% CI 1.52 to 10.73). Adverse events associated with lacosamide included: abnormal co-ordination (RR 6.12, 99% CI 1.35 to 27.77), blurred vision (RR 4.65, 99% CI 1.24 to 17.37), diplopia (RR 5.59, 99% CI 2.27 to 13.79), dizziness (RR 2.96, 99% CI 2.09 to 4.20), nausea (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.37 to 4.02), somnolence (RR 2.04, 99% CI 1.22 to 3.41), vomiting (RR 2.94, 99% CI 1.54 to 5.64), and number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events (RR 1.12, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.24). Adverse events that were not significant were: vertigo (RR 3.71, 99% CI 0.86 to 15.95), rash (RR 0.58, 99% CI 0.17 to 1.89), nasopharyngitis (RR 1.41, 99% CI 0.87 to 2.28), headache (RR 1.34, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.98), fatigue (RR 2.11, 99% CI 0.92 to 4.85), nystagmus (RR 1.47, 99% CI 0.61 to 3.52), and upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70, 99% CI 0.43 to 1.15).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lacosamide is effective and well-tolerated in the short term when used as add-on treatment for drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Lacosamide increases the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency and may increase seizure freedom, compared to placebo. Higher doses of lacosamide may be associated with higher rates of adverse events and treatment withdrawal. Additional evidence is required assessing the use of lacosamide in children and on longer-term efficacy and tolerability.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Bias; Child; Drug Resistant Epilepsy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Lacosamide; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures
PubMed: 33998660
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008841.pub3 -
Pain Jul 2024Previous research has indicated that an open-label placebo can reduce pain in both healthy participants and patients with chronic pain. Because nondeceptive placebos... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Previous research has indicated that an open-label placebo can reduce pain in both healthy participants and patients with chronic pain. Because nondeceptive placebos seem to be an effective and more ethical alternative to deceptive placebos, optimizing this kind of treatment is essential. Observational learning was previously shown to induce the deceptive placebo effect; therefore, this study aimed to verify its effectiveness in fortifying the open-label placebo effect. Healthy volunteers (N = 117) were randomly assigned to 4 groups: open-label placebo with observational learning (OLP + OBL), open-label placebo (OLP), deceptive placebo with observational learning (OBL), or control group. Participants underwent baseline and testing measurements, during which they self-reported pain induced by heat stimulation. Between assessments, placebo cream was openly administered in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups. The OLP + OBL group next watched a model experiencing hypoalgesia after cream application. In the OBL group, participants received placebo cream with no information about its effect, and then they watched the model. The placebo effect was successfully evoked in all experimental groups (OLP + OBL, OLP, and OBL), which confirms the effectiveness of both open-label and deceptive placebo interventions for pain reduction. However, the hypoalgesic effect was of similar magnitude in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups, which indicates that observation did not contribute to the effect. The results showed that reinforcing the open-label placebo by observational learning may be redundant, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Placebo Effect; Adult; Young Adult; Pain Measurement; Pain Threshold; Learning; Adolescent; Pain; Placebos
PubMed: 38227574
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003161 -
Nature Communications Mar 2021The brain systems underlying placebo analgesia are insufficiently understood. Here we performed a systematic, participant-level meta-analysis of experimental functional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The brain systems underlying placebo analgesia are insufficiently understood. Here we performed a systematic, participant-level meta-analysis of experimental functional neuroimaging studies of evoked pain under stimulus-intensity-matched placebo and control conditions, encompassing 603 healthy participants from 20 (out of 28 eligible) studies. We find that placebo vs. control treatments induce small, widespread reductions in pain-related activity, particularly in regions belonging to ventral attention (including mid-insula) and somatomotor networks (including posterior insula). Behavioral placebo analgesia correlates with reduced pain-related activity in these networks and the thalamus, habenula, mid-cingulate, and supplementary motor area. Placebo-associated activity increases occur mainly in frontoparietal regions, with high between-study heterogeneity. We conclude that placebo treatments affect pain-related activity in multiple brain areas, which may reflect changes in nociception and/or other affective and decision-making processes surrounding pain. Between-study heterogeneity suggests that placebo analgesia is a multi-faceted phenomenon involving multiple cerebral mechanisms that differ across studies.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia; Behavior; Brain; Female; Humans; Image Enhancement; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Nervous System; Pain; Placebos
PubMed: 33654105
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21179-3 -
Pain Aug 2016Placebos are often used by clinicians, usually deceptively and with little rationale or evidence of benefit, making their use ethically problematic. In contrast with... (Review)
Review
Placebos are often used by clinicians, usually deceptively and with little rationale or evidence of benefit, making their use ethically problematic. In contrast with their typical current use, a provocative line of research suggests that placebos can be intentionally exploited to extend analgesic therapeutic effects. Is it possible to extend the effects of drug treatments by interspersing placebos? We reviewed a database of placebo studies, searching for studies that indicate that placebos given after repeated administration of active treatments acquire medication-like effects. We found a total of 22 studies in both animals and humans hinting of evidence that placebos may work as a sort of dose extender of active painkillers. Wherever effective in relieving clinical pain, such placebo use would offer several advantages. First, extending the effects of a painkiller through the use of placebos may reduce total drug intake and side effects. Second, dose-extending placebos may decrease patient dependence. Third, using placebos along with active medication, for part of the course of treatment, should limit dose escalation and lower costs. Provided that nondisclosure is preauthorized in the informed consent process and that robust evidence indicates therapeutic benefit comparable to that of standard full-dose therapeutic regimens, introducing dose-extending placebos into the clinical arsenal should be considered. This novel prospect of placebo use has the potential to change our general thinking about painkiller treatments, the typical regimens of painkiller applications, and the ways in which treatments are evaluated.
Topics: Analgesics; Animals; Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Placebos; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27023425
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000566 -
BMJ Open Mar 2016To find evidence, either corroborating or refuting, for many persisting beliefs regarding the feasibility of carrying out surgical randomised controlled trials with a... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To find evidence, either corroborating or refuting, for many persisting beliefs regarding the feasibility of carrying out surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm, with emphasis on the challenges related to recruitment, funding, anaesthesia or blinding.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
The analysis involved studies published between 1959 and 2014 that were identified during an earlier systematic review of benefits and harms of placebo-controlled surgical trials published in 2014.
RESULTS
63 trials were included in the review. The main problem reported in many trials was a very slow recruitment rate, mainly due to the difficulty in finding eligible patients. Existing placebo trials were funded equally often from commercial and non-commercial sources. General anaesthesia or sedation was used in 41% of studies. Among the reviewed trials, 81% were double-blinded, and 19% were single-blinded. Across the reviewed trials, 96% (range 50-100%) of randomised patients completed the study. The withdrawal rate during the study was similar in the surgical and in the placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrated that placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible, at least for procedures with a lower level of invasiveness, but also that recruitment is difficult. Many of the presumed challenges to undertaking such trials, for example, funding, anaesthesia or blinding of patients and assessors, were not reported as obstacles to completion in any of the reviewed trials.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 27008687
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010194 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Dec 2014It is important to determine the magnitude and identify modifiers of the rate of response to placebo in clinical trials of fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD), to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
It is important to determine the magnitude and identify modifiers of the rate of response to placebo in clinical trials of fistulizing Crohn's disease (CD), to understand disease progression, and to calculate sample size. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of rates of response to placebo in trials of patients with fistulizing CD.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE CLASSIC, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacologic agents with placebo in adults with fistulizing CD. We identified studies that reported complete fistula closure, partial closure, or response. Data were extracted as intention-to-treat analyses and pooled by using a random-effects model. Proportions of patients who received placebo and had complete or partial fistula(e) closure were calculated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The effects of trial characteristics on the magnitude of response to placebo were examined.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were eligible for our analysis; these included 579 patients assigned to placebo groups. The pooled rate of response to placebo, among all RCTs, for complete fistula closure was 15.6% (95% CI, 10.9%-20.9%), with significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 62.5%, P = .001). The pooled rate of response to placebo for partial fistula closure or response in 9 trials, comprising 423 patients, was 18.3% (95% CI, 14.8%-22.1%). Rates of response to placebo were significantly lower in trials with shorter durations of therapy and shorter intervals to assessment of fistula closure. Neither exposure to the pharmacologic agent during the induction phase of the same (or related) RCT nor concomitant medications had any effect.
CONCLUSIONS
In a meta-analysis of rate of response to placebo in patients with fistulizing CD, we found that fistulae closed in almost 1/6 patients given placebo in RCTs of pharmacologic agents. Future research should identify characteristics of patients that predict response to placebo.
Topics: Crohn Disease; Fistula; Humans; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25218669
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.08.038 -
JAMA Jul 2021In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received a citizen petition indicating that ranitidine contained the probable human carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received a citizen petition indicating that ranitidine contained the probable human carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). In addition, the petitioner proposed that ranitidine could convert to NDMA in humans; however, this was primarily based on a small clinical study that detected an increase in urinary excretion of NDMA after oral ranitidine consumption.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the 24-hour urinary excretion of NDMA after oral administration of ranitidine compared with placebo.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial at a clinical pharmacology unit (West Bend, Wisconsin) conducted in 18 healthy participants. The study began in June 2020, and the end of participant follow-up was July 1, 2020.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment sequences and over 4 periods received ranitidine (300 mg) and placebo (randomized order) with a noncured-meats diet and then a cured-meats diet. The cured-meats diet was designed to have higher nitrites, nitrates (nitrate-reducing bacteria can convert nitrates to nitrites), and NDMA.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE
Twenty-four-hour urinary excretion of NDMA.
RESULTS
Among 18 randomized participants (median age, 33.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 28.3 to 42.8] years; 9 women [50%]; 7 White [39%], 11 African American [61%]; and 3 Hispanic or Latino ethnicity [17%]), 17 (94%) completed the trial. The median 24-hour NDMA urinary excretion values for ranitidine and placebo were 0.6 ng (IQR, 0 to 29.7) and 10.5 ng (IQR, 0 to 17.8), respectively, with a noncured-meats diet and 11.9 ng (IQR, 5.6 to 48.6) and 23.4 ng (IQR, 8.6 to 36.7), respectively, with a cured-meats diet. There was no statistically significant difference between ranitidine and placebo in 24-hour urinary excretion of NDMA with a noncured-meats diet (median of the paired differences, 0 [IQR, -6.9 to 0] ng; P = .54) or a cured-meats diet (median of the paired differences, -1.1 [IQR, -9.1 to 11.5] ng; P = .71). No drug-related serious adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this trial that included 18 healthy participants, oral ranitidine (300 mg), compared with placebo, did not significantly increase 24-hour urinary excretion of NDMA when participants consumed noncured-meats or cured-meats diets. The findings do not support that ranitidine is converted to NDMA in a general, healthy population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04397445.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Cross-Over Studies; Dimethylnitrosamine; Double-Blind Method; Female; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Male; Placebos; Ranitidine
PubMed: 34180947
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.9199 -
Medecine Sciences : M/S 2019A placebo drug is defined as a treatment without any specific pharmacological efficacy, that works when the patient thinks to receive an active treatment, through a... (Review)
Review
A placebo drug is defined as a treatment without any specific pharmacological efficacy, that works when the patient thinks to receive an active treatment, through a psychological and physiological mechanism. This study aimed to evaluate the use of placebo in French hospitals, in Polyvalent Medicine units. A questionnaire comprising 15 items was sent to 372 units. The analysis of 153 responses was conducted from dynamic crosstabs in Excel and using the R software available online. The survey confirmed that the use of placebos in hospital is frequent, with nearly 2/3 of professionals answering the questionnaire declared to use it. The oral capsule is the most commonly used form. Placebo is mainly administered at night, in case of pain, insomnia or anxiety, to so-called "difficult" patients. Placebo is not always given after medical prescription. In most cases, patients are not informed that they receive a placebo. The majority of professionals believed in the placebo effect but considered to be insufficiently informed and trained in the use of placebo in current practice. Although the placebo effect is now demonstrated, ethical and legal considerations recommend placebo treatment only on medical prescription, with the prior information of the patient. The placebo could be used as complementary therapy to conventional treatment in the cases of this therapeutic effectiveness has been demonstrated. Professionals should be trained in the use of placebo in order to avoid nocebo effect and potentiate beneficial effects of placebo.
Topics: Adult; Disclosure; Female; France; General Practice; Hospital Units; Hospitals; Humans; Male; Morals; Physician-Patient Relations; Placebo Effect; Placebos
PubMed: 31532380
DOI: 10.1051/medsci/2019127 -
PloS One 2014Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify...
BACKGROUND
Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients.
METHODS
A purposive diverse sample of 58 English-speaking adults (18 men; aged 19-80 years) participated in 11 focus groups. Vignettes describing doctors prescribing placebos in primary care were used to initiate discussions. Data were analyzed inductively.
RESULTS
Participants discussed diverse harms and benefits of placebo-prescribing for individual patients, carers, healthcare providers, and society. Two perspectives on placebo-prescribing were identified. First, the "consequentialist" perspective focused on the potential for beneficial outcomes of placebo-prescribing. Here, some participants thought placebos are beneficial and should be used clinically; they often invoked the power of the mind or mind-body interactions. Others saw placebos as ineffective and therefore a waste of time and money. Second, the "respecting autonomy" perspective emphasized the harms caused by the deceptive processes thought necessary for placebo-prescribing. Here, participants judged placebo-prescribing unacceptable because placebo-prescribers deceive patients, thus a doctor who prescribes placebos cannot be trusted and patients' autonomy is compromised. They also saw placebo-responders as gullible, which deterred them from trying placebos themselves. Overall, the word "placebo" was often thought to imply "ineffective"; some participants suggested alternative carefully chosen language that could enable doctors to prescribe placebos without directly lying to patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Negative views of placebos derive from beliefs that placebos do not work and/or that they require deception by the doctor. Positive views are pragmatic in that if placebos work then any associated processes (e.g. mechanisms, deception) are deemed unimportant. Public education about placebos and their effects is warranted and research to identify optimal ways of harnessing placebo effects in clinical practice is needed.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Focus Groups; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patients; Placebo Effect; Placebos; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25006673
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101822