Dataset Information

Better than sham? A double-blind placebo-controlled neurofeedback study in primary insomnia.

ABSTRACT: See Thibault et al. (doi:10.1093/awx033) for a scientific commentary on this article.Neurofeedback training builds upon the simple concept of instrumental conditioning, i.e. behaviour that is rewarded is more likely to reoccur, an effect Thorndike referred to as the 'law of effect'. In the case of neurofeedback, information about specific electroencephalographic activity is fed back to the participant who is rewarded whenever the desired electroencephalography pattern is generated. If some kind of hyperarousal needs to be addressed, the neurofeedback community considers sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback as the gold standard. Earlier treatment approaches using sensorimotor-rhythm neurofeedback indicated that training to increase 12-15 Hz sensorimotor rhythm over the sensorimotor cortex during wakefulness could reduce attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and epilepsy symptoms and even improve sleep quality by enhancing sleep spindle activity (lying in the same frequency range). In the present study we sought to critically test whether earlier findings on the positive effect of sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback on sleep quality and memory could also be replicated in a double-blind placebo-controlled study on 25 patients with insomnia. Patients spent nine polysomnography nights and 12 sessions of neurofeedback and 12 sessions of placebo-feedback training (sham) in our laboratory. Crucially, we found both neurofeedback and placebo feedback to be equally effective as reflected in subjective measures of sleep complaints suggesting that the observed improvements were due to unspecific factors such as experiencing trust and receiving care and empathy from experimenters. In addition, these improvements were not reflected in objective electroencephalographic-derived measures of sleep quality. Furthermore, objective electroencephalographic measures that potentially reflected mechanisms underlying the efficacy of neurofeedback such as spectral electroencephalographic measures and sleep spindle parameters remained unchanged following 12 training sessions. A stratification into 'true' insomnia patients and 'insomnia misperceivers' (subjective, but no objective sleep problems) did not alter the results. Based on this comprehensive and well-controlled study, we conclude that for the treatment of primary insomnia, neurofeedback does not have a specific efficacy beyond unspecific placebo effects. Importantly, we do not find an advantage of neurofeedback over placebo feedback, therefore it cannot be recommended as an alternative to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, the current (non-pharmacological) standard-of-care treatment. In addition, our study may foster a critical discussion that generally questions the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and emphasizes the importance of demonstrating neurofeedback efficacy in other study samples and disorders using truly placebo and double-blind controlled trials.

SUBMITTER: Schabus M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5382955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectivesEsmirtazapine (1.5-4.5 mg) has demonstrated short-term sleep-promoting effects in nonelderly outpatients with chronic insomnia. This phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (NCT00631657) and its open-label extension (NCT00750919) investigated efficacy and safety of long-term esmirtazapine treatment in adult outpatients with chronic insomnia.MethodsParticipants were randomized to receive esmirtazapine 4.5 mg or placebo for 6 months; those receiving esmirtazapine were then rerandomized to esmirtazapine or placebo for an additional 7 days. Participants could enter the 6-month open-label extension with esmirtazapine 4.5 mg. The primary objective of the double-blind study was to assess long-term efficacy of esmirtazapine vs placebo on self-reported total sleep time. Assessing long-term safety and tolerability were secondary and primary objectives of the double-blind and extension studies, respectively.ResultsOverall, 457 participants received treatment in the double-blind study (esmirtazapine, n = 342; placebo, n = 115) and 184 participants (prior esmirtazapine, n = 136; prior placebo, n = 48) received esmirtazapine in the extension. In the double-blind study, a 48.7-minute increase in average nightly total sleep time was observed for esmirtazapine vs placebo (95% confidence interval, 35.0-62.5; P < .0001) at months 4-6. There was no evidence of residual effects on next-day alertness or daytime functioning and no evidence of rebound insomnia or withdrawal symptoms upon treatment discontinuation. Esmirtazapine was generally well tolerated; somnolence and weight gain were the most common adverse events.ConclusionsEsmirtazapine improved sleep duration vs placebo over at least 6 months. There was no evidence of next-day residual effects or of withdrawal symptoms or rebound insomnia following abrupt treatment discontinuation.Clinical trial registrationRegistry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: A 6-Month Efficacy and Safety Study of Org 50081 in Adult Patients With Chronic Primary Insomnia (21106/P05701/MK-8265-002); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00631657; Identifier: NCT00631657; and Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Twenty-Six Week Extension Trial of Org 50081 (Esmirtazapine) in Outpatients With Chronic Primary Insomnia (176003/P05721/MK-8265-007); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00750919); Identifier: NCT00750919.

Project description:ObjectiveInsomnia is prevalent among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Research indicates that sleep disruption may amplify clinical pain by altering central pain modulation, suggesting that treatment of insomnia may improve pain. The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in patients with knee OA, to determine whether improvements in sleep predict reduced pain, and to determine whether alterations in pain modulation mediate improvements in clinical pain.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled clinical trial of CBT-I in 100 patients with knee OA and insomnia (mean ± SD age 59.4 ± 9.5 years). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either 8 sessions of CBT-I or behavioral desensitization (placebo). We conducted in-home polysomnography (PSG), diary assessment, and sensory tests of pain modulation at baseline, posttreatment, 3 months, and 6 months.ResultsIntent-to-treat analyses demonstrated substantial improvement in sleep in both groups of patients. Patients in the CBT-I group had significantly greater reductions in wake after sleep onset (WASO), as measured by patient diary and PSG. Patients in both groups reported significant and comparable reductions in pain over 6 months, with one-third reporting a 30% reduction in pain severity. Baseline-to-posttreatment reductions in WASO as measured by diary and PSG predicted subsequent decreases in clinical pain. This effect was significantly greater for CBT-I compared with behavioral desensitization. No significant changes in laboratory measures of pain modulation were observed.ConclusionCompared with active placebo, CBT-I was efficacious in reducing sleep maintenance insomnia. CBT-I decreased clinical pain, but not pain modulation, suggesting that it has the potential to augment pain management in knee OA. Future work is needed to identify the mechanisms by which improved sleep reduces clinical pain.

Dataset Information

Better than sham? A double-blind placebo-controlled neurofeedback study in primary insomnia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets