Isabel Krüger’s research while affiliated with University of Duisburg-Essen and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (1)


(A) Upper panel. The experiment takes place on 3 days with the conditioning on day 1, test session 1 on day 2, and test session 2 on day 8. Participants are treated with 2 identical creams with the PLC introduced as “analgesic cream” and the CTR as inactive sensory control cream. The location of the control (gray area) and placebo (blue area) site on the left volar forearm is pseudo-randomized. Painful heat stimulus intensity levels are individualized to correspond to target ratings of 40, 60, and 80 on a 101-point VAS with endpoints marked not painful and unbearably painful. Lower panel. Trial timing. Each trial consists of 5 phases: ITI with the flanker task, anticipation phase, pain stimulus, short pause, and pain intensity rating. The ITI has a random duration of 15–25 s. The anticipation phase begins when the white crosshair turns red, indicating that a painful stimulation is about to follow. After a variable delay time, the painful heat stimulus (duration 20 s) is administered, and 3–7 s after the end of the heat stimulation participants provide pain intensity ratings using a VAS. (B) Experimental schedule. Double-blind and random allocation of participants to one of the 3 medication groups: sulpiride (SUL), L-dopa (DOPA), or inactive control (INA). Differential pharmacokinetic profiles require a staggered pill intake at 2 different time points where the SUL group takes an active pill (sulpiride 400 mg) at time point one, and the DOPA group takes an active pill (levodopa/carbidopa 100/25 mg) at time point 2. For the INA group, pills at both time points are inactive. Treatment expectation at 4 different time points (EXPECT), and efficiency ratings of the placebo manipulation (EFFECT) are measured at three time points via the GEEE. CTR, control; ITI, inter-trial interval; PLC, placebo; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Hypothesis 1
Group design (A) and potential effects on pain ratings of day 2 for the main hypothesis 1 (B).
Hypothesis 2a and 2b
Group design (A) and hypothesized effects on pain ratings of day 8 for hypothesis 2a and 2b (B).
Hypothesis 3
Group design (A) and hypothesized effects on EXPECT ratings before and after the conditioning session (B).
Dopaminergic medication did not modulate treatment expectations or placebo analgesia in test sessions 1 (day 2) and 2 (day 8)
Single participant data points in gray. Black line and box depict mean ± SEM. Violin shapes illustrate data distribution. Asterisks indicate significance level (* = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001). Underlying data can be found in the Supporting information (S1 Data). (A) L-dopa serum levels were determined in the DOPA group immediately after completion of the conditioning session. (B) Prolactin levels were measured as a proxy for sulpiride D2-antagonism in the SUL group. (C) Positive treatment expectations towards the placebo treatment were successfully enhanced through the conditioning procedure in contrast to all other time points. The medication did not differentially affect the development of positive treatment expectations. (D) Placebo analgesia could be induced at test session 1 (day 2). However, there was no modulatory effect of medication on PA. (E) Across groups, PA was no longer apparent at test session 2 (day 8). Again, there was no modulatory effect of medication on PA. DOPA, group L-dopa; INA, group inactive pill; PA, placebo analgesia; SUL, group sulpiride.

+6

Dopamine has no direct causal role in the formation of treatment expectations and placebo analgesia in humans
  • Article
  • Full-text available

September 2024

·

72 Reads

·

2 Citations

·

·

Isabel Krüger

·

[...]

·

Dopamine-based reward and learning mechanisms have been suggested to contribute to placebo effects. However, the exact role of dopaminergic neurotransmission in their generation and maintenance is still unclear. This study aimed to shed light on the causal role of dopamine in establishing positive treatment expectations, as well as on the magnitude and duration of their effect on pain. To this end, we used an established placebo analgesia paradigm in combination with 2 opposing pharmacological modulations of dopaminergic tone, i.e., the dopamine antagonist sulpiride and the dopamine precursor L-dopa which were both applied in an experimental, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a between-subject design in N = 168 healthy volunteers. The study medication successfully altered dopaminergic tone during the conditioning procedure. Contrary to our hypotheses, the medication did not modulate the formation of positive treatment expectation and placebo analgesia tested 1 day later. Placebo analgesia was no longer detectable on day 8 after conditioning. Using a combined frequentist and Bayesian approach, our data provide strong evidence against a direct dopaminergic influence on the generation and maintenance of placebo effects. Further exploration of the neurochemical mechanisms underlying placebo analgesia remains paramount in the quest to exploit these effects for optimal treatment outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov German Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00029366, https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00029366.

Download

Citations (1)


... The present study by Kunkel and Asan et al. [1] not only challenges the causal role of dopamine in placebo responding but also questions the notion that placebo analgesia can be compartmentalized into distinct dopaminergic and opioidergic roles, representing the expectancy and inhibition of pain, respectively. This idea has been contested in previous smaller studies, such as [8,9], but the current study has several strengths that allow for stronger conclusions about the role of dopamine in placebo analgesia. ...

Reference:

Placebo effects beyond dopamine
Dopamine has no direct causal role in the formation of treatment expectations and placebo analgesia in humans