Dataset Information

Providing open-label placebos remotely-A randomized controlled trial in allergic rhinitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Placebos can reduce physical symptoms even when provided with full honesty and disclosure. Yet, the precise mechanisms underlying the effects of "open-label placebos" (OLPs) have remained subject of debate. Furthermore, it is unclear whether OLPs are similarly effective when provided remotely, as is sometimes required e.g. in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

In a randomized-controlled trial, we examined the effects of OLP plus treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone on symptom reduction in people with allergic rhinitis (N = 54) over the course of two weeks. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was provided remotely (i.e. sent via postal service). To investigate the potential influence of the clinical encounter on the effects of OLP, we manipulated the perception of the virtual clinical encounter, both with respect to verbal and nonverbal factors (augmented vs. limited encounter).

Results

The results of the manipulation check confirmed that the augmented clinical encounter was evaluated more positively than the limited encounter, in terms of perceived warmth of the provider. Participants from all treatment groups showed significant symptom reduction from baseline to two weeks later, but OLP had no incremental effect over TAU. Participants benefitted more from OLP when they did not take any other medication against allergic symptoms than when taking medication on demand. When controlling for baseline symptoms, a significant treatment by encounter interaction was found, pointing to greater symptom improvement in the OLP group when the encounter was augmented, whereas the control group improved more when the encounter was limited.

Discussion

The study demonstrates that providing OLP and enhancing the encounter remotely is possible, but their effectiveness might be lower in comparison to previous studies relying on physical patient-provider interaction. The study raises questions for future research about the potential and challenges of remote placebo studies and virtual clinical encounters. The study has been registered as a clinical trial at ISRCTN (record number: 39018).

SUBMITTER: Kube T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7951912 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is an immune response of the nasal mucosa to airborne allergens and involves nasal congestion, watery nasal discharge, itching of the nose, and sneezing. The symptoms of allergic rhinitis may significantly affect a patient's quality of life and can be associated with conditions such as fatigue, headache, cognitive impairment, and sleep disturbances. Various complementary and alternative medicine treatments have been used for this condition in clinical practice. The Ayurveda system of medicine is the most common complementary medicine system practiced in Sri Lanka. The aim of this study is to examine the efficacy and safety of a decoction used in traditional Ayurveda for allergic rhinitis and its ready- to-use freeze dried formulation in comparison to an antihistamine over a period of 4 weeks on relief of symptoms in allergic rhinitis.Study designThis is a three-arm, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled clinical trial enrolling patients with AR. Tamalakyadi decoction containing 12 ingredients (TMD12), used in traditional Ayurveda and its freeze-dried formulation are the test products. The efficacy and safety of the two Ayurvedic dosage forms will be tested against the antihistamine loratadine. Patients with symptoms of AR will be allocated randomly into the three arms after a 1-week run-in period and the medications will be given orally for 28 days. Total Nasal symptom Score (TNSS) of the patients will be used as the primary efficacy endpoint. TNSS will be recorded and compared between the three arms prior to visit 1, at the end of 28 days, and end of the first and second months of follow-up. Symptom scores of daytime nasal symptoms, night time nasal symptoms, non-nasal symptoms and health-related quality of life questionnaire are used as secondary end points.DiscussionThis clinical trial will be able to provide evidence-based scientific data on Ayurvedic dosage form, TMD12, and the freeze-dried formulation in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. This trial is expected to develop capacity to scientifically evaluate various Ayurvedic treatments that are claimed to have efficacy in treatment of various disease conditions.Trial registrationISRCTN18149439 (6 May 2019).

Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture has shown beneficial effects for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR); however, it is time and cost intensive. We investigated feasibility and effects of self-administered body acupressure as a self-care technique that stimulates acupuncture points with manual pressure in SAR patients.MethodsWe conducted a two-armed randomized controlled exploratory trial to compare effects of self-administered acupressure over 4 weeks at five acupuncture points plus rescue medication (RM) with cetirizine compared to RM alone in SAR patients. Among other outcome parameters, we assessed disease-related quality of life (Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ]), overall SAR symptoms by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a rescue medication score (RMS) after 4 and 8 weeks.ResultsForty-one SAR patients (mean age 38.5 ± 10.0 years, n = 21, 51.2% women) were randomized. Compared to RM alone (n = 21), acupressure plus RM (n = 20) was associated with relevant improvements after 4 weeks, shown by the difference between groups in adjusted means of RQLQ: - 0.9 points (95% CI - 1.6 to - 0.2; p = 0.011) and VAS overall SAR symptoms: - 21.6 mm (95% CI - 36.3 to - 6.8; p = 0.005). The RMS was lower in the acupressure group than in the control group: 1.9 points (95% CI - 3.8 to - 0.1; p = 0.120). Group differences decreased slightly until week 8. The acupressure was feasible and safe.ConclusionResults of this exploratory study indicate that self-applied acupressure is feasible, may improve disease-specific quality of life and reduce disease-related symptoms as well as anti-allergic medication intake in SAR patients. High-quality confirmatory studies including a sham-control group are needed in the future. Trial registration DRKS-ID: DRKS00014310. Date of registration in DRKS: 2018/04/24. Investigator sponsored/initiated trial (IST/IIT): yes. Ethics approval/approval of the ethics committee: Approved (leading) Ethics Committee No. EA1/033/18, Ethik-Kommission der Charité -Universitätsmedizin Berlin. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00014310.

Project description:Background: This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and tolerability, and population pharmacokinetics (PPK) of montelukast as well as efficacy in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) in paediatric Japanese patients aged between 1 and 15 years. Methods: In this multi-centre, open-label trial, 87 paediatric Japanese patients with PAR received montelukast 4?mg oral granules (OG) for 4 weeks (1-5-year-olds, N?=?15), 4?mg OG for 12 weeks (1-5-year-olds, N?=?36), 5?mg chewable tablets (CT) for 12 weeks (6-9-year-olds, N?=?18), or 5?mg CT for12 weeks (10-15-year-olds, N?=?18). Clinical exams and laboratory assessments were conducted at study visits, and adverse events (AE) were monitored throughout the study up to 14 days after the last visit. Population pharmacokinetic approach was used to estimate AUC0-?, Cmax, Tmax and apparent elimination half-life in each age group. Efficacy was assessed based on global evaluations by the subject's caregiver. Results: There were no serious AEs and one discontinuation due to an AE. The most common AEs in any of the treatment groups were nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, and acute sinusitis. Montelukast exposure (AUC0-?) was similar in the 1-5-year-old group and the 6-9-year-old group, but 19% lower in the 10-15-year-old group. Among all patients, the total proportion of patients whose global evaluation was "very much better" was 5.7% (week 2), 11.5% (week 4), and 16.9% (week 12) reflecting improvement in symptoms over time. Conclusion: Montelukast was generally well tolerated in Japanese children with PAR. AUC0-?was similar in 1-5 and 6-9-year-olds, while a lower exposure was observed in the 10-15-year-old group likely due to differences in bodyweight. The exposure in Japanese paediatric patients was generally consistent with that in non-Japanese paediatric and adult patients. As assessed by the patients' caregivers, montelukast also demonstrated symptomatic improvement based on global evaluations of PAR.

Project description:BackgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common allergic diseases. The conventional treatments of allergic rhinitis are oral anti-histamines, the use of intranasal corticosteroids, and immunotherapy. Dissatisfied with the ineffectiveness and side effects of these treatments, substantial numbers of patients are turning to alternative treatments like Chinese herbal medicine, particularly Tian Jiu (TJ). TJ is a form of moxibustion in which herbal patches are applied to specific acupoints on the skin. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of TJ in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.Methods/designThis will be a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial in patients with AR. After a 1-week run-in period, eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to the TJ group, placebo-control group or waitlist-control group. The TJ and placebo-control groups will undergo a 4-week treatment with one session per week and one 4-week post-treatment follow-up. Participants in the waitlist-control group will not receive any treatment during the first 4 weeks but will be required to be assessed. The primary outcome will be the change in the weekly average of the Total Nasal Symptom Score recorded from baseline to the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes will be change in symptoms and change in need for medication between baseline and the end of treatment by using the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. Rescue medication (RM) needs will be measured using an RM score, comprising the weekly sum of daily assessments and any form of systemic steroids for allergic rhinitis.DiscussionThis study will be the first study to compare TJ treatment for allergic rhinitis with a placebo-control group, and a waitlist-control group. The investigation of TJ for allergic rhinitis will also suggest recommendations for clinical practice. The results of this study are expected to provide consolidated evidence for the effectiveness and safety of TJ for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis.Trial registrationNCT02470845 (17 May 2015).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a non-infectious immune disease and incidents of the disease has continuously increased in Thailand. Ginger, a Thai herb, is used in food and Thai traditional medicine. This study was designed to assess efficacy and safety of ginger extract in comparison with loratadine for AR treatment. METHODS:AR patients were treated with ginger extract 500?mg (n?=?40) against those treated with loratadine 10?mg (n?=?40) in a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial for 3 and 6?weeks. The efficacy was evaluated from clinical examinations i.e. total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), cross-sectional area of the nasal cavity with acoustic rhinometry (ARM) and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ). The safety of treatment was measured by blood pressure, blood analysis and history-taking for side effects. RESULTS:The results showed both ginger extract and loratadine treated groups significantly decreased TNSS scores but there was no significant difference between the two groups. In acoustic rhinometry measurement, the ginger treated group significantly gradually increased the estimated volume of the nasal cavity and decreased distances from the nostril, but the loratadine treated group did not cause a change. Both groups gave significantly improvement in every aspect of the RQLQ at third weeks. The treatment with ginger extract was as safe as loratadine as shown by renal and liver function results obtained from blood analysis. Both treatments had no effect on blood pressure of the patients. CONCLUSIONS:The ginger extract is as good as loratadine in improving nasal symptoms and quality of life in AR patients. However, ginger extract caused less side effects especially, drowsiness, fatigue, dizziness and constipation. Therefore, the ginger extract could be used as alternative treatment for patients with AR. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT02576808) on 15 October 2015.