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: 3.54). 11/2005; 8(4):349-55.
Source: PubMed


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.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    • "Further arguments also surround therapeutic facet joint interventions based on a lack of understanding of placebo control and the criterion standard [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. However, the criterion standard is not only limited to biopsy, but also longterm follow-up criteria [41] [42]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study Design. A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial. Objective. To determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with or without steroids in managing chronic mid back and upper back pain. Summary of Background Data. The prevalence of thoracic facet joint pain has been established as 34% to 42%. Multiple therapeutic techniques utilized in managing chronic thoracic pain of facet joint origin include medial branch blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, and intraarticular injections. Methods. This randomized double-blind active controlled trial was performed in 100 patients with 50 patients in each group who received medial branch blocks with local anesthetic alone or local anesthetic and steroids. Outcome measures included the numeric rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), opioid intake, and work status, at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Results. Significant improvement with significant pain relief and functional status improvement of 50% or more were observed in 80% of the patients in Group I and 84% of the patients in Group II at 2-year followup. Conclusions. Therapeutic medial branch blocks of thoracic facets with or without steroids may provide a management option for chronic function-limiting thoracic pain of facet joint origin.
    Anesthesiology Research and Practice 07/2012; 2012(9):585806. DOI:10.1155/2012/585806
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of cancer-related pain and residual pain in cancer survivors is high. Opioids serve as the gold standard for treating moderate to severe cancer pain. The evaluation of the effectiveness of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain has shown a lack of effectiveness, or rather weak evidence for some of the drugs. In contrast, in cancer pain, opioids are expected to be very effective. Due to the nature of the disease, there is evidence of a paucity of randomized trials investigating opioid effectiveness in cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, the effectiveness of opioids in managing cancer-related pain warrants further evidence-based review beyond randomized trials, including observational studies and case reports. The comprehensive literature search was conducted for the period 1996 through June 2010. Databases for the search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, and, along with reviews and cross references. Methodologic quality assessment of the observational studies managing chronic cancer pain with opioids was conducted utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. Analysis of evidence included 5 levels of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Grading recommendations were based on Guyatt et al's recommendations with 6 levels: 3 in the strong category and 3 in the weak category. This evaluation is of 18 manuscripts considered for inclusion; 7 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria based on AHRQ quality assessment. Level of evidence for opioid therapy in cancer pain was Level II-3, and recommendations were 1C/strong recommendation based on observational studies, which could change based on future evidence. This systematic review of observational studies indicates Level II-3 evidence for effectiveness of opioids in cancer pain therapy, with 1C/strong recommendation based on observational studies, which could change based on future evidence.
    Pain physician 03/2011; 14(2):E85-102. · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On behalf of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), the board and membership, the Executive Committee thanks Washington State Health Care Authority for providing us with an opportunity to present public comments for key questions on spinal injections. ASIPP is a not-for-profit professional organization comprised of over 4,500 interventional pain physicians and other practitioners who are dedicated to ensuring safe, appropriate, and equal access to essential pain management services for patients across the country suffering with chronic and acute pain. There are approximately 7,000 appropriately trained and qualified physicians practicing interventional pain management in the United States. Interventional pain management is defined as the discipline of medicine devoted to the diagnosis and treatment of pain related disorders principally with the application of interventional techniques in managing sub acute, chronic, persistent, and intractable pain, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatment (1). Interventional pain management techniques are minimally invasive procedures, including percutaneous precision needle placement, with placement of drugs in targeted areas or ablation of targeted nerves; and some surgical techniques such as laser or endoscopic diskectomy, intrathecal infusion pumps and spinal cord stimulators, for the diagnosis and management of chronic, persistent or intractable pain (2).
Show more