The potential benefit of the placebo effect in sham-controlled trials: implications for risk-benefit assessments and informed consent

Remy L Brim, Franklin G Miller, Remy L Brim, Franklin G Miller

Abstract

There has been considerable debate surrounding the ethics of sham-controlled trials of procedures and interventions. Critics argue that these trials are unethical because participants assigned to the control group have no prospect of benefit from the trial, yet they are exposed to all the risks of the sham intervention. However, the placebo effect associated with sham procedures can often be substantial and has been well documented in the scientific literature. We argue that, in light of the scientific evidence supporting the benefits of sham interventions for pain and Parkinson's disease that stem from the placebo effect, these sham-controlled trials should be considered as offering potential direct benefit to participants. If scientific evidence demonstrates the positive effect of placebo from sham interventions on other conditions, sham-controlled trials of interventions for the treatment of these conditions should be considered to have prospects of benefit as well. This potential benefit should be taken into account by research ethics committees in risk-benefit analyses, and be included in informed consent documents.

Keywords: Informed Consent; Policy Guidelines/Inst. Review Boards/Review Cttes.; Research Ethics.

References

    1. Miller FG, Kaptchuk TJ. Sham procedures and the ethics of clinical trials . J R Soc Med 2004;97:576–8
    1. Miller FG, Wendler D. The ethics of sham invasive intervention trials. Clin Trials 2009;6:401–2
    1. London AJ, Kadane JB. Placebos that harm: sham surgery controls in clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2002;11:413–27
    1. Macklin R. The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research. N Engl J Med 1999;341:992–96
    1. Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche P. Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010;1:CD003974.
    1. Bishop FL, Adams AE, Kaptchuk TJ, et al. Informed consent and placebo effects: a content analysis of information leaflets to identify what clinical trial participants are told about placebos. PLoS One 2012;7:e39661.
    1. Miller FG, Brody H. Understanding and harnessing placebo effects: clearing away the underbrush. Journal Med Philos 2011;36:69–78
    1. Lidstone SC, Schulzer M, Dinelle K, et al. Effects of expectation on placebo-induced dopamine release in Parkinson disease. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2010;67:857–65
    1. McRae C, Cherin E, Yamazaki TG, et al. Effects of perceived treatment on quality of life and medical outcomes in a double-blind placebo surgery trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61:412–20
    1. Wager TD, Rilling JK, Smith EE, et al. Placebo-induced changes in FMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science 2004;303:1162–7
    1. Amanzio M, Benedetti F. Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation-activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems. J Neurosci 1999;19:484–94
    1. Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Rosato R, et al. Nonopioid placebo analgesia is mediated by CB1 cannabinoid receptors. Nat Med 2011;17:1228–30
    1. Scott DJ, Stohler CS, Egnatuk CM, et al. Individual differences in reward responding explain placebo-induced expectations and effects. Neuron 2007;55(2):325–36
    1. de la Fuente-Fernandez R, Ruth TJ, Sossi V, et al. Expectation and dopamine release: mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease. Science 2001;293:1164–6
    1. Goetz CG, Leurgans S, Raman R. Placebo-associated improvements in motor function: comparison of subjective and objective sections of the UPDRS in early Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2002;17:283–8
    1. Linde K, Witt CM, Streng A, et al. The impact of patient expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. Pain 2007;128:264–71
    1. Beecher HK. Surgery as placebo. A quantitative study of bias. JAMA 1961;176:1102–7
    1. Dimond EG, Kittle CF, Crockett JE. Comparison of internal mammary artery ligation and sham operation for angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1960;5:483–6
    1. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009;361:569–79
    1. Moseley JB, O'Malley K, Petersen NJ, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347:81–8
    1. Haake M, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C, et al. German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for chronic low back pain: randomized, multicenter, blinded, parallel-group trial with 3 groups. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1892–8
    1. Wise RA, Bartlett SJ, Brown ED, et al. Randomized trial of the effect of drug presentation on asthma outcomes: the American Lung Association Asthma Clinical Research Centers. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124:436–44
    1. Katsnelson A. Experimental therapies for Parkinson's disease: why fake it? Nature 2011;476(7359):142–4
    1. Bishop FL, Jacobson EE, Shaw J, et al. Participants’ experiences of being debriefed to placebo allocation in a clinical trial. Qual Health Res 2012;22:1138–49
    1. Kaptchuk TJ, Friedlander E, Kelley JM, et al. Placebos without deception: a randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS One 2010;5(12):e15591.
    1. Chung SK, Price DD, Verne GN, et al. Revelation of a personal placebo response: its effects on mood, attitudes and future placebo responding. Pain 2007;132:281–8
    1. Miller FG, Colloca L. The legitimacy of placebo treatments in clinical practice: evidence and ethics. Am J Bioeth 2009;9:39–47

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj