The role of placebo and nocebo effects of perioperative administration of sedatives and opioids in interventional pain management.

Pain Management Center of Paducah, 2831 Lone Oak Road, Paducah, KY 42003, USA.
Pain physician (Impact Factor: 4.77). 11/2005; 8(4):349-55.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The role of nonspecific treatment effects in the outcomes of patients receiving interventions for pain has been the subject of controversy and interest. While the administration of placebo and its effects have been widely studied, the role of placebo and nocebo effects of active agents administered prior to or during interventional techniques has not been explored.
The evaluation of placebo and nocebo effects of sodium chloride solution and active agents (midazolam and fentanyl) administered during interventional techniques.
Randomized, placebo-controlled, evaluation.
A total of 360 patients were divided into three groups, with Group I receiving placebo, Group II receiving midazolam, and Group III receiving fentanyl. At 3 months, information was obtained with regards to their impressions or the experience of the study, compared to their previous experiences with the treatment and sedation. They were asked to rate their experience as better, worse, or no change compared to their previous experience.
Between 13% to 30% of patients across all three groups of the study, rated their pain relief following injection as better than their previous experience. A smaller proportion, 3% to 8%, of patients in all three groups rated their experience following injection as worse than their previous experience. The majority of patients, 67% to 79%, regardless of group, described no significant differences as compared to their previous experiences with sedation and treatment for cervical or lumbar facet joint pain.
In patients undergoing interventional procedures, sodium chloride solution, midazolam, and fentanyl produced placebo effects in 13% to 15%, 15% to 20%, and 18% to 30% of the patients respectively. Similarly, a nocebo effect was seen in 5% to 8% of the patients in the sodium chloride group, 8% of the patients in the midazolam group, and 3% to 8% of the patients in the fentanyl group. It is concluded that positive and negative effects may be seen either with placebo or active agents in 13% to 30% of the patients.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diagnostic injections are used to diagnose myriad pain conditions, but are characterized by a high false-positive rate. One potential cause of inaccurate diagnostic blocks is the use of sedation. We sought to determine the effect of sedation on the validity of diagnostic injections. Randomized, crossover study in which 73 patients were allocated to receive a diagnostic sacroiliac joint or sympathetic nerve block performed either with or without sedation using midazolam and fentanyl. Those who obtained equivocal relief, good relief lasting less than 3 months, or who were otherwise deemed good candidates for a repeat injection, received a subsequent crossover injection within 3 months (N = 46). A tertiary care teaching hospital and a military treatment facility. In the primary crossover analysis, blocks performed with sedation resulted in a larger mean reduction in pain diary score than those done without sedation (1.2 [2.6]; P = 0.006), less procedure-related pain (difference in means 2.3 [2.5]; P < 0.0001), and a higher proportion of patients who obtained > 50% pain relief on their pain diaries (70% vs. 54%; P = 0.039). The increased pain reduction was not accompanied by increased satisfaction (sedation mean 3.9 [1.1] vs. 3.7 [1.3]; P = 0.26). Similar findings were observed for the parallel group (N = 73) and omnibus (all sedation vs. no sedation blocks, N = 110) analyses. No differences in outcomes were noted between the use and non-use of sedation at 1-month. The use of sedation during diagnostic injections may increase the rate of false-positive blocks and lead to misdiagnoses and unnecessary procedures, but has no effect on satisfaction or outcomes at 1-month.
    Pain Medicine 02/2014; · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The investigation of nocebo effects is evolving and a few literature reviews have emerged, however, so far without quantifying such effects. This quantitative systematic review investigated nocebo effects in pain. We searched the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register with the term "nocebo". Only studies that investigated nocebo effects as the effects that follow the administration of an inert treatment along with verbal suggestions of symptom worsening and that included a no-treatment control condition were eligible. Ten studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d and Hedges' g. The overall magnitude of the nocebo effect was moderate to large (lowest g = 0.62 (0.24-1.01) and highest g = 1.03 (0.63-1.43)) and highly variable (range of g = -0.43-4.05). The magnitudes and range of effect sizes was similar to those of placebo effects (d = 0.81) in mechanistic studies. In studies where nocebo effects were induced by a combination of verbal suggestions and conditioning, the effect size was larger (lowest g = 0.76 (0.39-1.14) and highest g = 1.17 (0.52-1.81)) than in studies where nocebo effects were induced by verbal suggestions alone (lowest g = 0.64 (-0.25-1.53) and highest g = 0.87 (0.40-1.34)). These findings are similar to those in the placebo literature. Since the magnitude of the nocebo effect is variable and sometimes large, this systematic review demonstrates the importance of minimizing nocebo effects in clinical practice.
    Pain 04/2014; · 5.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Doctor-patient communication has far reaching influences on the overall well-being of the patients. Words are powerful tools in the doctor's armamentarium, having both healing as well as harming effects. Doctors need to be conscious about the choice of their words. This study aimed to determine the frequency and pattern of Nocebo Phenomenon (NP) un-intentionally induced by the communication of surgeons and anesthetists through the course of various interventional procedures such as surgery, anesthesia, and crucial communication encounters with their patients. Methods: The study was carried out by the Department of Medical Education (DME), Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (SZABMU), Islamabad over six months period. All residents and faculty members serving at our institute in various surgical and anesthesia departments constituted the study population. A questionnaire was employed as the data collection tool. Results: Significant proportions of the doctor-patient communications under scrutiny entailed NP. It was more frequently observed in association with female gender of the involved professionals, residency status versus faculty position, and shorter professional experience (i.e. <5 years). Although the participants endorsed the fact that the choice of their words influenced the well-being of their patients, none of them were actually aware of the concept of NP. Conclusion: NP existed in the clinical practice of the surgeons and anesthetists during their communication with patients. It was more frequently found among females, residents and professionals with less than five years of working experience. There is need to create awareness among these professionals about the subtle negative messages conveyed by such communication and alert them that the nocebo effects have negative repercussions on the clinical outcomes of their patients. The professionals should be formally educated to avoid nocebo words and phrases.
    International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) 06/2014; 3(1):23-7.