Articles: placebo.
-
Meta Analysis
Placebo and nocebo responses in painful diabetic neuropathy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
This preregistered (CRD42021223379) systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to characterize the placebo and nocebo responses in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), updating the previous literature by a decade. Four databases were searched for PDN trials published in the past 20 years, testing oral medications, adopting a parallel-group design. Magnitude of placebo or nocebo responses, Cochrane risk of bias, heterogeneity, and moderators were evaluated. ⋯ The year of study initiation was the only significant moderator of placebo response (regression coefficient = -0.06, [95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, P = 0.007]). More recent RCTs tended to be longer, bigger, and to include older patients (N = 21, rs = 0.455, P = 0.038, rs = 0.600, P = 0.004, rs = 0.472, P = 0.031, respectively). Our findings confirm the magnitude of placebo and nocebo responses, identify the year of study initiation as the only significant moderator of placebo response, draw attention to contextual factors such as confidence in PDN treatments, patients' previous negative experiences, intervention duration, and information provided to patients before enrollment.
-
Review Randomized Controlled Trial
Choice Enhances Placebo Hypoalgesia More in Weaker Placebo Contexts: A Partial Reinforcement Study.
Providing individuals with choice over treatment has been found to enhance placebo hypoalgesia. However, this choice effect is not always present. The current study tested whether the strength of the placebo context influenced the effect of choice on placebo hypoalgesia. ⋯ Therefore, choice may be a cheap and effective tool for improving clinical outcomes by facilitating placebo hypoalgesia when the existing treatment context is insufficient to produce placebo hypoalgesia itself. PERSPECTIVE: This study demonstrates that the enhancing effect of choice on placebo hypoalgesia is greater in a weaker placebo context. As such, offering choice could be an ethical way to effectively improve pain outcomes when placebo effects cannot be readily produced by the treatment context.
-
Cranberries (particularly in the form of cranberry juice) have been used widely for several decades for the prevention and treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs). The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of cranberries in treating such infections. ⋯ After a thorough search, no RCTs which assessed the effectiveness of cranberry juice for the treatment of UTIs were found. Therefore, at the present time, there is no good quality evidence to suggest that it is effective for the treatment of UTIs. Well-designed parallel-group, double-blind studies comparing cranberry juice and other cranberry products versus placebo to assess the effectiveness of cranberry juice in treating UTIs are needed. Outcomes should include a reduction in symptoms, sterilisation of the urine, side effects and adherence to therapy. The dosage (amount and concentration) and duration of therapy should also be assessed. Consumers and clinicians will welcome the evidence from these studies.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Dec 2023
ReviewMedically assisted hydration for adults receiving palliative care.
Many people receiving palliative care have reduced oral intake during their illness, and particularly at the end of their life. Management of this can include the provision of medically assisted hydration (MAH) with the aim of improving their quality of life (QoL), prolonging their life, or both. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2008, and updated in February 2011 and March 2014. ⋯ Three review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance, and two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias assessment. The primary outcome was QoL using validated scales; secondary outcomes were survival and adverse events. For continuous outcomes, we measured the arithmetic mean and standard deviation (SD), and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between groups. For dichotomous outcomes, we estimated and compared the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs between groups. For time-to-event data, we planned to calculate the survival time from the date of randomisation and to estimate and express the intervention effect as the hazard ratio (HR). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study (200 participants), for a total of four studies included in this update (422 participants). All participants had a diagnosis of advanced cancer. With the exception of 29 participants who had a haematological malignancy, all others were solid organ cancers. Two studies each compared MAH to placebo and standard care. There were too few included studies to evaluate different subgroups, such as type of participant, intervention, timing of intervention, and study site. We considered one study to be at high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding; otherwise, risk of bias was assessed as low or unclear. MAH compared with placebo Quality of life One study measured change in QoL at one week using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) (scale from 0 to 108; higher score = better QoL). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves QoL (MD 4.10, 95% CI -1.63 to 9.83; 1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Survival One study reported on survival from study enrolment to last date of follow-up or death. We were unable to estimate HR. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (1 study, 93 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events One study reported on intensity of adverse events at two days using a numeric rating scale (scale from 0 to 10; lower score = less toxicity). No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (injection site pain: MD 0.35, 95% CI -1.19 to 1.89; injection site swelling MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.22; 1 study, 49 participants, very low-certainty evidence). MAH compared with standard care Quality of life No data were available for QoL. Survival One study measured survival from randomisation to last date of follow-up at 14 days or death. No data were available from the other study. We are uncertain whether MAH improves survival (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 1 study, 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events Two studies measured adverse events at follow-up (range 2 to 14 days). We are uncertain whether MAH leads to adverse events (RR 11.62, 95% CI 1.62 to 83.41; 2 studies, 242 participants, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the previous update of this review, we have found one new study. In adults receiving palliative care in the end stage of their illness, there remains insufficient evidence to determine whether MAH improves QoL or prolongs survival, compared with placebo or standard care. Given that all participants were inpatients with advanced cancer at end of life, our findings are not transferable to adults receiving palliative care in other settings, for non-cancer, dementia or neurodegenerative diseases, or for those with an extended prognosis. Clinicians will need to make decisions based on the perceived benefits and harms of MAH for each individual's circumstances, without the benefit of high-quality evidence to guide them.
-
Pompe disease is caused by a deficiency of the enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase (GAA). People with infantile-onset disease have either a complete or a near-complete enzyme deficiency; people with late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) retain some residual enzyme activity. GAA deficiency is treated with an intravenous infusion of recombinant human acid alglucosidase alfa, an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). Alglucosidase alfa and avalglucosidase alfa are approved treatments, but cipaglucosidase alfa with miglustat is not yet approved. ⋯ One trial compared the effect of ERT to placebo in LOPD, showing that alglucosidase alfa probably improves 6MWT and respiratory function (both moderate-certainty evidence). Avalglucosidase alfa probably improves 6MWT compared with alglucosidase alfa (moderate-certainty evidence). Cipaglucosidase plus miglustat probably improves FVC compared to alglucosidase alfa plus placebo (moderate-certainty evidence). Other trials studied the adjunct effect of clenbuterol and albuterol along with alglucosidase alfa, with little to no evidence of benefit. No significant rise in adverse events was noted with all ERTs. The impact of ERT on some outcomes remains unclear, and longer RCTs are needed to generate relevant information due to the progressive nature of LOPD. Alternative resources, such as post-marketing registries, could capture some of this information.