Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PLACEBOS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources
PubMed1996

A multicentre, double-blind study comparing placebo, ondansetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. Ondansetron Delayed Emesis Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron, given alone or in combination with dexamethasone in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. A total of 640 chemotherapy-naïve patients received ondansetron 8 mg i.v. and dexamethasone 20 mg i.v. for the control of acute emesis prior to cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) on day 1. Patients who were not rescued or withdrawn on day 1 were to be randomised 24 hours after the start of cisplatin administration to one of four groups; group I placebo oral (p.o.), twice daily (bd) on days 2-6 (n = 125); group II ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) on days 2/3 followed by placebo (p.o. bd) on days 4-6 (n = 199); group III ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) on days 2-6 (n = 214); group IV ondansetron (8 mg p.o. bd) plus dexamethasone (4 mg p.o. bd) on days 2-6 (n = 66). RESULTS: On day 1, 81% of patients had complete control of acute emesis, with 68% having no emesis and no nausea. Over days 2/3 and over days 2-6, significantly more patients receiving ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) reported no emesis and no nausea (49% and 45%, respectively) compared to ondansetron alone (32% and 27%, respectively) or placebo (group I; 33% and 27%, respectively; P < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). There were no significant differences in the control of emesis over days 2/3, where 61% of patients had complete emetic control (0 emetic episodes) with ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV), 54% with ondansetron (groups II + III) and 49% with placebo (group I). In the distribution of nausea grades, ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) was significantly superior to ondansetron (groups II + III); P = 0.037) and placebo (group I; P = 0.013) over days 2/3. Over days 2-6 there were no significant differences in the control of emesis, however a comparison of the distribution of nausea grades over days 2-6 showed ondansetron plus dexamethasone (group IV) to be significantly superior to ondansetron (group III; P = 0.043) and placebo (group I; P = 0.024). All treatments were well tolerated and no unexpected drug-related adverse events were reported. There were no differences in the overall incidence of adverse events between the active treatment groups or placebo. Constipation and headache, recognised side effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, were the most commonly reported adverse events with the incidence of constipation with ondansetron alone (group III) being significantly greater than with over days 2-6 (14% vs. 6%; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: In contrast to some previous investigations, in this study, ondansetron alone appears to have a minor role in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and nausea. In conclusion, the combination of oral ondansetron plus dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron and to placebo.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Angiotensin II receptor antagonist telmisartan in isolated systolic hypertension (ARAMIS) study: efficacy and safety of telmisartan 20, 40 or 80 mg versus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or placebo.

OBJECTIVE: To identify telmisartan doses that are more effective than placebo and non-inferior to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, and are well tolerated, in lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 2-4-week single-blind placebo run-in was followed by randomization of 1039 patients (age 36-84 years) with ISH [seated SBP 150-179 mmHg and seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90 mmHg] to once-daily double-blind treatment with telmisartan 20, 40 or 80 mg, HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo. The change in seated trough SBP after 6 weeks compared with baseline was the primary end point. Secondary end points were the percentage achieving the target fall in SBP and the change from baseline in seated trough DBP. Incidence and severity of adverse events and physical examination and laboratory parameters were monitored for the safety evaluation. RESULTS: Baseline demographics in telmisartan 20 mg (n = 206), 40 mg (n = 210), 80 mg (n = 207), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 205) and placebo (n = 211) treatment groups were comparable: (mean +/- SD) age, 63.0 +/- 10.9 years; SBP, 162.9 +/- 8.1 mmHg; and DBP 83.4 +/- 5.0 mmHg. No previous antihypertensive therapy had been received by 66% of the patients. Mean reductions in seated trough SBP (adjusted for baseline and country) were: telmisartan 20 mg, 15.6 mmHg (n = 204); 40 mg, 17.9 mmHg (n = 209); and 80 mg, 16.9 mmHg (n = 205), compared with placebo, 11.4 mmHg (n = 208), and HCTZ 12.5 mg, 15.7 mmHg (n = 204). The target fall in seated trough SBP (< or =140 mmHg or reduction by > or =20 mmHg) was achieved in 46.6% (telmisartan 20 mg), 51.7% (telmisartan 40 mg), 53.9% (telmisartan 80 mg), 27.4% (placebo) and 42.7% (HCTZ 12.5 mg); the response rate was significantly higher for telmisartan 80 mg than for HCTZ 12.5 mg (P = 0.03). All-causality adverse events occurred in 19.9, 17.6 and 20.3% receiving telmisartan 20, 40 and 80 mg, respectively; 20.9% receiving placebo and 22.0% receiving HCTZ 12.5 mg. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: All doses of telmisartan (20-80 mg) were significantly superior to placebo in reducing SBP in patients with ISH and clinically comparable to HCTZ 12.5 mg. Tolerability of telmisartan was similar to that of placebo.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, exploratory trial of chromium picolinate in atypical depression: effect on carbohydrate craving.

BACKGROUND: : In a small pilot trial, patients with atypical depression demonstrated significant positive therapeutic response to chromium picolinate. This finding is of interest because of the demonstrated link between depression, decreased insulin sensitivity, and subsequent diabetes and chromium picolinate's insulin enhancing effect. METHODS: : In this double-blind, multicenter, 8-week replication study, 113 adult outpatients with atypical depression were randomized 2:1 to receive 600 mug/day of elemental chromium, as provided by chromium picolinate (CrPic), or placebo. Primary efficacy measures were the 29-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-29) and the Clinical Global Impressions Improvement Scale (CGI-I). RESULTS: : Of the 113 randomized patients, 110 (70 CrPic, 40 placebo) constituted the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (i.e., received at least one dose of study medication and completed at least one efficacy evaluation) and 75 (50 CrPic, 25 placebo) were evaluable (i.e., took at least 80% of study drug with no significant protocol deviations). In the evaluable population, mean age was 46 years, 69% were female, 81% were Caucasian, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7. There was no significant difference between the CrPic and placebo groups in both the ITT and evaluable populations on the primary efficacy measures, with both groups showing significant improvement from baseline on total HAM-D-29 scores during the course of treatment (p < 0.0001). However, in the evaluable population, the CrPic group showed significant improvements from baseline compared with the placebo group on 4 HAM-D-29 items: appetite increase, increased eating, carbohydrate craving, and diurnal variation of feelings. A supplemental analysis of data from the subset of 41 patients in the ITT population with high carbohydrate craving (26 CrPic, 15 placebo; mean BMI = 31.1) showed that the CrPic patients had significantly greater response on total HAM-D-29 scores than the placebo group (65% vs. 33%; p < 0.05) as well as significantly greater improvements on the following HAM-D-29 items: appetite increase, increased eating, carbohydrate craving, and genital symptoms (e.g., level of libido). Chromium treatment was well-tolerated. LIMITATIONS: : The study did not include a placebo run-in period, did not require minimum duration or severity of depression, and enrolled patients with major depression, dysthymia, or depression NOS. CONCLUSIONS: : In a population of adults with atypical depression, most of whom were overweight or obese, CrPic produced improvement on the following HAM-D-29 items: appetite increase, increased eating, carbohydrate craving, and diurnal variation of feelings. In a subpopulation of patients with high carbohydrate craving, overall HAM-D-29 scores improved significantly in patients treated with CrPic compared with placebo. The results of this study suggest that the main effect of chromium was on carbohydrate craving and appetite regulation in depressed patients and that 600 mug of elemental chromium may be beneficial for patients with atypical depression who also have severe carbohydrate craving. Further studies are needed to evaluate chromium in depressed patients specifically selected for symptoms of increased appetite and carbohydrate craving as well as to determine whether a higher dose of chromium would have an effect on mood.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Haloperidol in the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. haloperidol in treatment of acute migraine headache in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study design. BACKGROUND: Neuroleptics are mainly used as antiemetics in acute migraine. In a previous open trial haloperidol was effective in relieving migraine pain. DESIGN: Patients were randomized into 2 groups receiving intravenously either 5 mg haloperidol in 500 mL of normal saline or 500 mL of normal saline alone. Pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) before and 1 to 3 hours after the infusion. If the patient felt no relief in pain intensity 1 to 3 hours after the infusion and had received placebo, he/she then received haloperidol infusion as an open trial. The open trial also included 7 patients who refused from the placebo-controlled trial. About 1 month after the infusion the patients were contacted by telephone and interviewed about the side effects of the treatment. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled into the double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Before the infusion the VAS values were 7.7 in the haloperidol and 7.2 in the placebo group. After the infusion the VAS values were 2.2 in the haloperidol and 6.3 in the placebo group (P < .0001). Significant pain relief was achieved in 80% of the patients treated with haloperidol, whereas only 3 patients (15%) responded to placebo (P < .0001). Seventeen patients treated with placebo without response together with 7 patients who refused from the placebo-controlled study participated in the open trial. In this group VAS declined from 6.7 to 2.4 and 79% of these patients felt significant pain relief. The most common side effects caused by haloperidol were sedation and akathisia, the latter being more troublesome. These effects were very common in patients participating in the double-blind (80%) and open (88%) trials. Sixteen percent of the patients considered the side effects intolerable and would not like the migraine attacks to be treated with haloperidol in the future. Three patients (7%) returned to the emergency ward because of a relapse. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that i.v. haloperidol is very effective in relieving migraine-associated pain. Because the majority of the patients had taken other medication without response, haloperidol appears to be an effective rescue medication even when other types of treatment have failed. Relapses are rare, but side effects are common, limiting the use of haloperidol in some patients.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Oxymorphone extended-release tablets relieve moderate to severe pain and improve physical function in osteoarthritis: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare oxymorphone extended release (ER) and placebo on indices of pain, function, and safety in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. DESIGN: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study, patients were randomized to oxymorphone ER 20 mg (N = 121), oxymorphone ER 40 mg (N = 121), oxycodone controlled release 20 mg (N = 125), or placebo (N = 124) every 12 hours. The primary efficacy end point was change in arthritis pain intensity (visual analog scale, 0-100) from baseline to week 3 for the oxymorphone ER 40 mg group versus placebo. RESULTS: The primary end point was achieved: the week 3 oxymorphone ER least squares mean difference (LSMD) from placebo was -9.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -16.2 to -1.8; P = 0.015). Secondary efficacy analysis showed similar improvements at week 4 (LSMD from placebo, -10.3 [95% CI: -17.7 to -2.8]; P = 0.007) and with oxymorphone ER 20 mg at week 3 (LSMD from placebo, -7.7 [95% CI: -15.0 to -0.4]; P = 0.039) and week 4 (LSMD from placebo, -7.5 [95% CI: -15.0 to 0.0]; P = 0.050). Weeks 3 and 4 pain intensity decreased by approximately 30-40%. Oxymorphone ER 20 and 40 mg improved from baseline on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Composite Index and pain and physical function subscales at week 4. Adverse events in all opioid groups included mild to moderate nausea, constipation, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term study, oxymorphone ER was superior to placebo for relieving pain and improving function in patients with moderate to severe chronic OA pain, and is an alternative to other sustained-release opioids.

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2006

Understanding alcohol expectancy effects: revisiting the placebo condition.

This article summarizes a symposium organized and cochaired by Maria Testa and presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Research Society on Alcoholism, in Santa Barbara, California. The symposium explored issues relevant to understanding the function of placebo conditions and to interpreting placebo effects. Cochair Mark Fillmore began with an overview of the use of placebo conditions in alcohol research, focusing on methodological issues. Jeanette Norris and her colleagues conducted a review of studies examining placebo conditions among women. They conclude that expectancy effects are limited to a few domains. Maria Testa and Antonia Abbey presented papers suggesting that placebo manipulations may result in unanticipated compensatory effects in actual or hypothetical social situations. That is, placebo participants may compensate for anticipated cognitive impairment through vigilant attention to situational cues. John Curtin's research suggests that the compensatory strategies of placebo participants appear to involve a sensitization of evaluative control, resulting in improved performance. Kenneth Leonard provided concluding remarks on the meaning of placebo effects and the value of placebo conditions in research.

Alcohol Drinking↗
PubMed1983

A double-blind, controlled evaluation of zimeldine, imipramine and placebo in patients with primary affective disorders.

Zimeldine, imipramine and placebo were studied in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group comparison of 119 patients with primary affective disorders. These out-patients were between 18 and 65 years of age and all received placebo single-blind during an initial 3-7-day washout period. During the subsequent 6-week double-blind period, patients were titrated from 50 mg b.d. to 150 mg b.d. with zimeldine, a potent and selective inhibitor of 5-HT reuptake, with imipramine, an inhibitor of noradrenaline and 5-HT reuptake, or with a corresponding number of placebo capsules. The zimeldine treatment group had significantly lower mean HAM-D scale total scores than the placebo and imipramine groups at week 4 and last available assessment. There was a significantly greater proportion of patients showing an improvement of 50% or more in HAM-D score, among the zimeldine group than in the placebo group at week 4, and among the imipramine group at weeks 4, 6 and last available assessment. The Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales and the 56-item Hopkins Symptom Check-list (HSCL-56) self-rating inventory both showed significantly more improvement in the zimeldine patients than in the placebo or the imipramine patients. Fewer zimeldine patients reported adverse experiences than imipramine patients. Dry mouth was the most frequently reported adverse experience, occurring significantly more often in the imipramine group than the zimeldine or the placebo groups; significantly more zimeldine than placebo patients reported dry mouth. Headache was the only other adverse experience which occurred more often in the zimeldine than in the placebo group. The imipramine group had consistently higher mean pulse rates than the other two groups, and postural hypotension was also more common in the imipramine group.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Placebos in clinical practice and research.

The main current application of placebo is in clinical research. The term placebo effect refers to diverse non-specific, desired or non-desired effects of substances or procedures and interactions between patient and therapist. Unpredictability of the placebo effect necessitates placebo-controlled designs for most trials. Therapeutic and diagnostic use of placebo is ethically acceptable only in few well-defined cases. While "therapeutic" application of placebo almost invariably implies deception, this is not the case for its use in research. Conflicts may exist between the therapist's Hippocratic and scientific obligations. The authors provide examples in neuropsychiatry, illustrating that objective scientific data and well-considered guidelines may solve the ethical dilemma. Placebo control might even be considered an ethical obligation but some provisos should be kept in mind: (a) no adequate therapy for the disease should exist and/or (presumed) active therapy should have serious side-effects; (b) placebo treatment should not last too long; (c) placebo treatment should not inflict unacceptable risks, and (d) the experimental subject should be adequately informed and informed consent given.

Beneficence↗
PubMed2005

Aliskiren, a novel orally effective renin inhibitor, provides dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability in hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: Stopping the detrimental effects of the renin-angiotensin system at the most upstream point of the cascade offers theoretical advantages for cardiovascular protection. This study compares the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the novel oral renin inhibitor aliskiren with placebo and an active comparator. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator 8-week trial in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =95 and <110 mm Hg). After a 2-week, single-blind placebo run-in, 652 patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with once-daily oral doses of aliskiren (150, 300, or 600 mg), irbesartan 150 mg, or placebo. Aliskiren 150, 300, and 600 mg effectively lowered both trough mean sitting DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (P<0.001 versus placebo for both variables). The least-squares mean reductions in trough DBP were 9.3+/-0.8, 11.8+/-0.8, and 11.5+/-0.8 mm Hg, respectively, versus 6.3+/-0.8 mm Hg for placebo, and the least-squares mean reductions in trough SBP were 11.4+/-1.3, 15.8+/-1.2, and 15.7+/-1.2 mm Hg, respectively, versus 5.3+/-1.2 mm Hg for placebo. The antihypertensive effect of aliskiren 150 mg was comparable to that of irbesartan 150 mg (8.9+/-0.7 and 12.5+/-1.2 mm Hg, least-squares reduction in mean sitting DBP and SBP, respectively, for irbesartan). Aliskiren 300 and 600 mg lowered mean sitting DBP significantly more than irbesartan 150 mg (P<0.05). Aliskiren showed safety and tolerability comparable to those of placebo and irbesartan; the incidence of adverse events and number of patients discontinuing therapy were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily oral treatment with aliskiren lowers blood pressure effectively, with a safety and tolerability profile comparable to that of irbesartan and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Aliskiren 150 mg is as effective as irbesartan 150 mg in lowering blood pressure.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2006

Changes in brain function (quantitative EEG cordance) during placebo lead-in and treatment outcomes in clinical trials for major depression.

OBJECTIVE: Decreases in prefrontal electroencephalogram (EEG) cordance that are detectable as early as 48 hours after the start of medication have been related to clinical outcome in treatment trials for major depressive disorder. The relationship between brain changes during the placebo lead-in phase and medication treatment outcome is unknown. The authors hypothesized that decreases in prefrontal cordance during the placebo lead-in phase would be associated with better clinical outcome in subjects treated with antidepressants. METHOD: Data were pooled examining 51 adults with major depressive disorder from two independent double-blind placebo-controlled trials. A 1-week single-blind placebo lead-in phase preceded 8 weeks of randomized treatment with medication (fluoxetine 20 mg or venlafaxine 150 mg) or placebo. The authors obtained quantitative EEG cordance measures at baseline and at the end of the placebo lead-in period. Relationships between regional cordance changes at the end of the placebo lead-in period and clinical outcome (the final 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores) were examined using multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: As hypothesized, decreases in prefrontal cordance during the placebo lead-in period were associated with lower final Hamilton depression scale scores in subjects randomly assigned to medication. Prefrontal changes explained 19% of the variance in final Hamilton depression scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: Neurophysiological changes during a placebo lead-in period may serve as nonpharmacodynamic biomarkers of eventual treatment outcomes in clinical trials for major depressive disorder.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

The biochemical bases for reward. Implications for the placebo effect.

The authors propose that the placebo effect is mediated by reward-related mechanisms. Recent evidence suggests that it is the expectation of reward (in this case, the expectation of clinical benefit) that triggers the placebo response. In Parkinson's disease, the placebo effect is mediated by the release of dopamine in the striatum. The authors argue that placebo-induced dopamine release in limbic structures, particularly in the nucleus accumbens, could also be a major biochemical substrate for the placebo effect encountered in other medical disorders. Other neuroactive substances involved in the reward circuitry (e.g., opioids) are also likely to contribute to the placebo response, and such contribution may be disorder specific (e.g., opioid release in placebo analgesia; serotonin regulation in response to placebo antidepressants). In addition, placebos may have a role in substitution programs for the treatment of drug addiction.

Corpus Striatum↗
PubMed2005

Quetiapine augmentation of SRIs in treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study [ISRCTN83050762].

BACKGROUND: Although serotonin reuptake inhibitors are effective in the treatment of OCD, many patients fail to respond to these agents. Growing evidence from open-label and placebo-controlled trials suggests a role for augmentation of SRIs with atypical antipsychotics in OCD. Quetiapine is generally well tolerated and previous open-label data has produced mixed results in OCD and additional controlled data is needed. METHODS: We undertook a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine augmentation in subjects who had responded inadequately to open-label treatment with an SRI for 12 weeks. Following informed consent and screening, forty-two subjects were randomised to either placebo or quetiapine for six weeks. RESULTS: There was significant improvement from baseline to endpoint on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale in both the quetiapine and placebo groups (quetiapine, n = 20, p < 0.0001; placebo, n = 21, p = 0.001) with 40% (n = 8) of quetiapine and 47.6% (n = 10) of placebo treated subjects being classified as responders. Quetiapine did not demonstrate a significant benefit over placebo at the end of the six-week treatment period (p = .636). Similarly quetiapine failed to separate from placebo in the subgroup of subjects (n = 10) with co-morbid tics. Quetiapine was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, quetiapine augmentation was no more effective than placebo augmentation of SRIs. A number of limitations in study design make comparisons with previous studies in this area difficult and probably contributed to our negative findings. Future work in this important clinical area should address these limitations.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1981

Comparison of nadolol, a new long-acting beta-receptor blocking agent, and placebo in the treatment of stable angina pectoris.

Nadolol, a new nonselective beta 1 and beta 2 adrenergic blocking agent, has a plasma half-life of 17 to 23 hours. We studied 37 volunteers with stable angina pectoris who had five or more episodes of pain per week and who also had a 1 mm or greater ST segment depression 80 msec past the J point during a Bruce protocol treadmill test. An eight-week placebo controlled run-in period preceded double-blind randomization to nadolol administered once per day (17 patients) or identical appearing placebo for four weeks (20 patients), after which an exercise test was done. Diaries for pain episodes and nitroglycerin consumption were kept. Exercise tests were performed 24 hours after the last nadolol or placebo dose. Episodes of pain per week were reduced 59.8 percent after nadolol and 28.2 percent after placebo (P less than .01). Nitroglycerin consumption after nadolol was reduced 66.8 percent while after placebo it was reduced 36.2 percent (P less than .05). Resting and peak heart rates and peak rate-pressure products showed typical reductions due to beta-blockade 24 hours after nadolol compared with stability of these during placebo, all P less than .001. Exercise time after nadolol increased 42.2 percent, which was more than the 14.5 percent increase after placebo (P less than .05). Exercise work after nadolol increased 64.7 percent, greater than the 22 percent increase after placebo (P less than .05). Mean ST segment depression at end of exercise was little changed before and after treatment in both groups, reflecting consistency of effort. Improvement in symptoms and work capacity associated with nadolol significantly exceeded the placebo group responses. Unlike other available agents of this class, a single daily dose of nadolol produced therapeutically effective 24-hour beta-blockade in patients with disabling angina pectoris.

Angina Pectoris↗
PubMed2006

Brain activity associated with expectancy-enhanced placebo analgesia as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging.

In this study, a well established expectancy manipulation model was combined with a novel placebo intervention, a validated sham acupuncture needle, to investigate the brain network involved in placebo analgesia. Sixteen subjects completed the experiment. We found that after placebo acupuncture treatment, subjective pain rating reduction (pre minus post) on the placebo-treated side was significantly greater than on the control side. When we calculated the contrast that subtracts the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signal difference between post-treatment and pretreatment during pain application on placebo side from the same difference on control side [e.g., placebo (post - pre) - control (post - pre)], significant differences were observed in the bilateral rostral anterior cingulate cortex (rACC), lateral prefrontal cortex, right anterior insula, supramarginal gyrus, and left inferior parietal lobule. The simple regression (correlation) analysis between each subject's fMRI signal difference of post-treatment and pretreatment difference on placebo and control side and the corresponding subjective pain rating difference showed that significant negative correlation was observed in the bilateral lateral/orbital prefrontal cortex, rACC, cerebellum, right fusiform, parahippocampus, and pons. These results are different from a previous study that found decreased activity in pain-sensitive regions such as the thalamus, insula, and ACC when comparing the response to noxious stimuli applied to control and placebo cream-treated areas of the skin. Our results suggest that placebo analgesia may be configured through multiple brain pathways and mechanisms.

Acupuncture Analgesia↗
PubMed2001

Design of clinical trials of antidepressants: should a placebo control arm be included?

There is no doubt that available antidepressants are efficacious and effective. Nevertheless, more effective drugs with improved tolerability are needed. With this need in mind, some protagonists claim that future antidepressants should be proved superior to, or at least as effective as, established antidepressants, making placebo control methodologically dispensable in clinical trials. Moreover, the use of placebo control is criticised as unethical because it might result in effective treatment being withheld. There are, however, a number of methodological reasons why placebo control is indispensable for the proof of efficacy of antidepressants. Comparing investigational antidepressants only with standard antidepressants and not placebo yields ambiguous results that are difficult to interpret, be it in superiority or equivalence testing, and this method of assessment requires larger sample sizes than those required with the use of placebo control. Experimental methodology not adhering to the optimal study design is ethically questionable. Restricting the testing of investigational antidepressants only to superiority over standard antidepressants is an obstacle to therapeutic progress in terms of tolerability and the detection of innovative mechanisms of action from which certain subgroups of future patients might benefit. The use of a methodology that requires larger samples for testing of superiority or equivalence is also ethically questionable. In view of the high placebo response rates in trials of antidepressants, placebo treatment does not mean withholding effective treatment. Accepting the necessity of the clinical evaluation of new, potentially ineffective antidepressants implicitly means accepting placebo control as ethically justified. Three- or multi-arm comparisons including placebo and an active reference represent the optimal study design.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

A double-masked placebo-controlled trial assessing effects of various doses of BTS 67,582, a novel insulinotropic agent, on fasting hyperglycemia in NIDDM patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect over a 4-week period of varying doses of BTS 67,582, a novel nonsulfonylurea insulinotropic agent, on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels in sulfonylurea-responsive NIDDM patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 12-week multicenter, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Patients entered a 4-week stabilization period during which they received their previously prescribed sulfonylurea. Qualified patients (FPG < or = 10 mmol/l) then entered a 4-week sulfonylurea withdrawal single-masked placebo run-in period. Qualified patients (FPG 8.9-16.7 mmol/l) were randomized to either placebo (n = 14), 50 mg b.i.d. BTS 67,582 (n = 18), 250 mg b.i.d. BTS 67,582 (n = 18), 500 mg b.i.d. BTS 67,582 (n = 15), 100 mg q.d. BTS 67,582 (n = 17), or 500 mg q.d. BTS 67,582 (n = 16). The primary efficacy variables were mean changes from baseline in FPG and fructosamine (FRUC). Additional variables included mean changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting serum insulin (FSI), and fasting serum C-peptide. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of treatment, all BTS 67,582 dose groups showed a decrease from baseline in FPG and FRUC compared with the placebo group. The treatment groups of 250 mg b.i.d. (-3.1 +/- 0.7 mmol/l), 500 mg b.i.d. (-2.3 +/- 0.6 mmol/l), and 500 mg q.d. (-1.2 +/- 0.7 mmol/l) had statistically significant (P < 0.05) decreases in FPG compared with placebo (0.7 +/- 0.6 mmol/l). Similarly, there were statistically significant (P < 0.05) decreases from baseline in FRUC for the 250 mg b.i.d (-55 +/- 10 mumol/l), 500 mg b.i.d. (-40 +/- 12 mumol/l), and 500 mg q.d. (-13 +/- 9 mumol/l) treatment groups compared with placebo (15 +/- 11 mumol/l). Although the treatment period was only 4 weeks in duration, there were also significant differences (P < 0.05) in the HbA1c changes from baseline for the 250 mg b.i.d. (0.0 +/- 0.1%) and 500 mg b.i.d. (-0.2 +/- 0.1%) treatment groups compared with placebo (0.6 +/- 0.2%). There were no significant differences among the treatment groups in the changes from baseline for FSI or C-peptide levels. The most frequently reported side effects were headache, asthenia, infection, and thirst, and the incidence of these events as well as the incidence of study drug discontinuation was comparable in all treatment groups including placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Four weeks of treatment with BTS 67,582 at doses of 250 mg b.i.d. and 500 mg b.i.d. in NIDDM patients was effective in reducing FPG and FRUC, with significant results also seen for HbA1c. The drug was well tolerated with an incidence of discontinuations and laboratory side-effect safety profiles comparable to placebo. BTS 67,582 is a safe and effective oral treatment for NIDDM patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of risperidone for the treatment of aggression, agitation, and psychosis of dementia.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the efficacy and safety of risperidone in the treatment of aggression, agitation, and psychosis in elderly nursing-home patients with dementia. METHOD: Elderly patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer's type, vascular dementia, or a combination of the 2 (i.e., mixed dementia) and significant aggressive behaviors were randomized to receive, for a period of 12 weeks, a flexible dose of either placebo or risperidone solution up to a maximum of 2 mg/day. Outcome measures were the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) rating scale, and the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and of Change (CGI-C) scales. RESULTS: A total of 345 patients were randomized to treatment with risperidone or placebo, and 337 patients received at least one dose of study drug. The trial was completed by 67% of patients in the placebo group and 73% of patients in the risperidone group. The mean +/- SE dose of risperidone was 0.95 +/- 0.03 mg/day. The primary endpoint of the study, the difference from baseline to endpoint in CMAI total aggression score, showed a significant reduction in aggressive behavior for risperidone versus placebo (p <.001). A similar improvement was also seen for the CMAI total non-aggression subscale (p <.002) and for the BEHAVE-AD total (p <.001) and psychotic symptoms subscale (p =.004). At endpoint, the CGI-S and the CGI-C scores indicated a significantly greater improvement with risperidone compared with placebo (p <.001). Overall, 94% and 92% of the risperidone and placebo groups, respectively, reported at least 1 adverse event. Somnolence and urinary tract infection were more common with risperidone treatment, whereas agitation was more common with placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who reported extrapyramidal symptoms between the risperidone (23%) and placebo (16%) groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with low-dose (mean = 0.95 mg/day) risperidone resulted in significant improvement in aggression, agitation, and psychosis associated with dementia.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of selegiline transdermal system without dietary restrictions in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: The monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitor selegiline has demonstrated antidepressant efficacy superior to placebo. A selegiline transdermal system (STS) has been developed with unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that allow inhibition of central nervous system MAO-A and MAO-B enzymes while substantially avoiding inhibition of intestinal and liver MAO-A enzyme. This novel transdermal system provides targeted MAO inhibition without clinically significant increases in sensitivity to dietary tyramine. We investigated the safety and efficacy of STS in patients with major depressive disorder. METHOD: 365 outpatients 18 to 65 years old with a DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder were enrolled at 16 sites. A 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17) score of > or = 20 was required for entry. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either STS, 20 mg/20 cm(2), daily or placebo patch for up to 8 weeks. A tyramine-restricted diet was neither required nor advised. Efficacy, safety, and vital sign measures were obtained regularly. RESULTS: 289 patients were randomly assigned to treatment and received at least 1 on-therapy evaluation (STS, N = 145; placebo, N = 144). Although the effect size was modest, at endpoint, STS was statistically superior to placebo on the MADRS (p =.001) and HAM-D-28 (p =.039) ratings and showed a nonsignificant superiority on the HAM-D-17 (p =.069) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity ratings (p <.055). Side effect profiles were similar for STS and placebo with the exception of application-site reaction, which was observed in 31.5% of STS patients and 15.1% of placebo-treated patients (p =.001). No significant differences were observed in blood pressure measures between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Results from this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial demonstrate that STS may have a modest, but statistically significant, antidepressant benefit compared with placebo and a similar safety profile compared with placebo in the absence of a tyramine-restricted diet.

Administration, Cutaneous↗