Dataset Information

Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

ABSTRACT: Analgesic trials frequently fail to demonstrate efficacy of drugs known to be efficacious. Poor pain reporting accuracy is a possible source for this low essay-sensitivity. We report the effects of Accurate-Pain-Reporting-Training (APRT) on the placebo response in a trial of Pregabalin for painful-diabetic-neuropathy. The study was a two-stage randomized, double-blind trial: In Stage-1 (Training) subjects were randomized to APRT or No-Training. The APRT participants received feedback on the accuracy of their pain reports in response to mechanical stimuli, measured by R-square score. In Stage-2 (Evaluation) all subjects entered a placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. Primary (24-h average pain intensity) and secondary (current, 24-h worst, and 24-h walking pain intensity) outcome measures were reported. Fifty-one participants completed the study. APRT patients (n = 28) demonstrated significant (p = 0.036) increases in R-square scores. The APRT group demonstrated significantly (p = 0.018) lower placebo response (0.29 ± 1.21 vs. 1.48 ± 2.21, mean difference ± SD = -1.19±1.73). No relationships were found between the R-square scores and changes in pain intensity in the treatment arm. In summary, our training successfully increased pain reporting accuracy and resulted in a diminished placebo response. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Treister R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5993117 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

Treister Roi R Lawal Oluwadolapo D OD Shecter Jonathan D JD Khurana Nevil N Bothmer John J Field Mark M Harte Steven E SE Kruger Grant H GH Katz Nathaniel P NP

PloS one 20180524 5

Analgesic trials frequently fail to demonstrate efficacy of drugs known to be efficacious. Poor pain reporting accuracy is a possible source for this low essay-sensitivity. We report the effects of Accurate-Pain-Reporting-Training (APRT) on the placebo response in a trial of Pregabalin for painful-diabetic-neuropathy. The study was a two-stage randomized, double-blind trial: In Stage-1 (Training) subjects were randomized to APRT or No-Training. The APRT participants received feedback on the accu ...[more]

PMID: 29795665

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAspartame is a commonly used intense artificial sweetener, being approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose. There have been concerns over aspartame since approval in the 1980s including a large anecdotal database reporting severe symptoms. The objective of this study was to compare the acute symptom effects of aspartame to a control preparation.MethodsThis was a double-blind randomized cross over study conducted in a clinical research unit in United Kingdom. Forty-eight individual who has self reported sensitivity to aspartame were compared to 48 age and gender matched aspartame non-sensitive individuals. They were given aspartame (100mg)-containing or control snack bars randomly at least 7 days apart. The main outcome measures were acute effects of aspartame measured using repeated ratings of 14 symptoms, biochemistry and metabonomics.ResultsAspartame sensitive and non-sensitive participants differed psychologically at baseline in handling feelings and perceived stress. Sensitive participants had higher triglycerides (2.05 ± 1.44 vs. 1.26 ± 0.84mmol/L; p value 0.008) and lower HDL-C (1.16 ± 0.34 vs. 1.35 ± 0.54 mmol/L; p value 0.04), reflected in 1H NMR serum analysis that showed differences in the baseline lipid content between the two groups. Urine metabonomic studies showed no significant differences. None of the rated symptoms differed between aspartame and control bars, or between sensitive and control participants. However, aspartame sensitive participants rated more symptoms particularly in the first test session, whether this was placebo or control. Aspartame and control bars affected GLP-1, GIP, tyrosine and phenylalanine levels equally in both aspartame sensitive and non-sensitive subjects.ConclusionUsing a comprehensive battery of psychological tests, biochemistry and state of the art metabonomics there was no evidence of any acute adverse responses to aspartame. This independent study gives reassurance to both regulatory bodies and the public that acute ingestion of aspartame does not have any detectable psychological or metabolic effects in humans.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39650237.

Project description:BackgroundGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) activation may improve myocardial performance in the context of ischaemia, independent of glycaemic control, in individuals with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsThe LIONESS trial was a single-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study to determine whether prolonged GLP-1R activation could improve exercise haemodynamics in chronic stable angina patients. Eligibility criteria comprised angiographic evidence of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and an abnormal baseline exercise tolerance test (ETT) demonstrating?>?0.1 mV of planar or downsloping ST-segment depression (STD). Those randomised to active agent started with a 1-week run-in phase of 0.6 mg liraglutide daily, an established injectable GLP-1R agonist, followed by 1 week of 1.2 mg liraglutide, after which patients performed a week 2 ETT. Patients then self-administered 1.8 mg liraglutide for a week before completing a week 3 ETT. The placebo arm received visually and temporally matched daily saline injections. Participants then crossed over to a 3-week course of saline injections interspersed with a week 5 ETT and week 6 ETT and vice versa. Co-primary endpoints were rate pressure product (RPP) at 0.1 mV STD and magnitude of STD at peak exercise.ResultsTwenty-two patients (21 without diabetes) were randomised. There was no significant difference between saline versus liraglutide in the co-primary endpoints of RPP achieved at 0.1 mV STD (saline vs. liraglutide 1.2 mg p?=?0.097; saline vs. liraglutide 1.8 mg p?=?0.48) or the degree of STD at peak exercise (saline vs. liraglutide 1.2 mg p?=?0.68; saline vs. liraglutide 1.8 mg p?=?0.57). Liraglutide did not cause symptomatic hypoglycaemia, renal dysfunction, acute pancreatitis or provoke early withdrawal from the trial. Liraglutide significantly reduced weight (baseline 88.75?±?16.5 kg vs. after liraglutide 87.78?±?16.9 kg; p?=?0.0008) and improved the lipid profile (mean total cholesterol: at baseline 3.97?±?0.88 vs. after liraglutide 3.56?±?0.71 mmol/L; p?<?0.0001).ConclusionLiraglutide did not enhance exercise tolerance or haemodynamics compared with saline placebo during serial treadmill testing in patients with established obstructive CAD. It did, however, significantly reduce weight and improve the lipid profile. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02315001. Retrospectively registered on 11th December 2014.

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

Publications

Accurate pain reporting training diminishes the placebo response: Results from a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure