Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Placebo analgesia: Friend or foe?

  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The magnitude of placebo analgesia is influenced by environmental and perceptual factors. Environmental factors include past exposure to effective analgesic agents and verbal suggestions and cues that foster a perception of being given an effective treatment. Environmental factors, in turn, influence the proximate psychologic mediators of placebo analgesia, which include decreased desire for and increased expectations of pain relief. Strategies to maximize placebo analgesic effects in clinical practice could focus on using verbal suggestions and external cues to increase expectations of pain relief and/or decrease the perceived need for pain reduction. Placebo analgesic effects could be minimized in clinical trials by avoiding these same suggestions and cues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Colloca L, Benedetti F: The placebo in clinical studies and in medical practice. In Psychological Modulation of Pain. Edited by Price DD, Bushnell MC. Seattle: I.A.S.P. Press; 2004:187–206.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Turner JA, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, et al.: The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA 1994, 271:1609–1614.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Harrington A: Introduction. In The Placebo Effect. An Interdisciplinary Exploration. Edited by Harrington A. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beecher HK: The powerful placebo. JAMA 1955, 159:1602–1606.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shapiro AK, Morris LA: The placebo effect in medical and psychological therapies. In Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behaviour Change: an Empirical Analysis, 2nd edition. Edited by Garfield SL, Bergin AE. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1978:369–409.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pollo A, Amanzio M, Arslanian A, et al.: Response expectancies in placebo analgesia and their clinical relevance. Pain 2001, 93:77–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fields HL, Levine JD: Biology of placebo analgesia. Am J Med 1981, 70:745–746.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Levine JD, Gordon NC, Fields H: The mechanisms of placebo analgesia. Lancet 1978, 2:654–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gracely RH, Dubner R, Wolskee PJ, Deeter WR: Placebo and naloxone can later post-surgical pain by separate mechanisms. Nature 1983, 306:264–265.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Grevert P, Albert LH, Goldstein A: Partial antagonism of placebo analgesia by naloxone. Pain 1983, 16:129–143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Levine JD, Gordon NC: Influence of the method of drug administration on analgesic response. Nature 1984, 312:755–756.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Benedetti F, Amanzio M, Maggi G: Potentiation of placebo analgesia by proglumide. Lancet 1995, 346:1231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Amanzio M, Benedetti F: Neuropharmacological dissection of placebo analgesia: expectation activated opioid systems versus conditioning-activated specific subsystems. J Neurosci 1999, 19:484–494. Investigators induced ischemic pain to examine the independent and combined effects of expectation and conditioning on placebo responses to both morphine and ketorolac. For both drugs, conditioning plus expectation produced larger placebo responses than either factor alone. The analgesia produced by expectation, conditioning, and the combination were all reversible when morphine was the active drug; however, for ketorolac the expectation-mediated placebo response was only partially opioid mediated, and the conditioning component of the placebo response was completely naloxone insensitive.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Benedetti F, Arduino C, Amanzio M: Somatotopic activation of opioid systems by target-directed expectations of analgesia. J Neurosci 1999, 9:3639–3648. Expectations of pain reduction were targeted to a specific body site(s) by topically administering an inert cream and informing subjects that it was a potent local anesthetic. This placebo manipulation reduced capsaicin-induced pain only at the placebo-targeted site(s), and hidden injection of naloxone reversed this placebo analgesia but did not affect pain at other sites. This provides evidence for target-directed opioid-mediated placebo analgesia.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Amanzio M, Pollo A, Maggi G, Benedetti F: Response variability to analgesics: a role for non-specific activation of endogenous opioids. Pain 2001, 90:205–215. This study examined the influence of open versus hidden injections of various analgesics (buprenorphine, tramadol, ketorolac, metamizol) among patients experiencing postoperative pain. Across all drugs, the analgesic dose required to produce 50% pain relief was significantly lower with open compared to hidden injections of medication.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hrobjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Is the placebo effect powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:1594–1602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hrobjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Is the placebo effect powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment. J Intern Med 2004, 256:91–100.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hrobjartsson A, Norup M: The use of placebo interventions in medical practice—a national questionnaire survey of Danish clinicians. Eval Health Prof 2003, 26:153–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kienle GS, Kiene H: Placebo effects and placebo concepts: a critical methodological and conceptual analysis of reports on the magnitude of the placebo effect. Altern Ther Health Med 1996, 2:39–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kienle GS, Kiene H: The powerful placebo effect: fact or fiction? J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:1311–1318.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Vase L, Riley III JL, Price DD: A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia. Pain 2002, 99:443–452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hrobjartsson A, Gøtzsche PC: Unsubstantiated claims of large effects of placebo on pain: serious errors in metaanalysis of placebo analgesia mechanism studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:336–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wickramasekera I: A conditioned response model of the placebo effect: predictions of the model. In Placebo: Theory, Research and Mechanisms. Edited by White L, Tursky B, Schwartz GE. New York: Guilford Press; 1985:255–287.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Laska E, Sunshine A: Anticipation of analgesia. A placebo effect. Headache 1973, 13:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Price DD, Milling LS, Kirsch I, et al.: An analysis of factors that contribute to the magnitude of placebo analgesia in an experimental paradigm. Pain 1999, 83:147–156. Placebo expectancies were manipulated by applying a placebo cream and then surreptitiously lowering the intensity of the painful stimulus. The magnitude of the placebo effect corresponded to the magnitude of the stimulus reduction, and expectancies strongly predicted the magnitude of the placebo effect.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Vase L, Robinson ME, Verne GN, Price DD: The contributions of suggestion, expectancy and desire to placebo effect in irritable bowl syndrome patients. Pain 2003, 105:17–25. Examined the effects of verbal suggestions for pain relief on responses to rectal distention after rectal lidocaine, oral lidocaine, and rectal placebo jelly among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Placebo was as effective as the two active treatments and substantially more effective than natural history or nocebo instructions in reducing pain. Expected pain and desire for pain relief explained much of the variance in pain relief.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Vase L, Robinson ME, Verne GN, Price DD: Increased placebo analgesia over time in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients is associated with desire and expectation but not endogenous opioid mechanisms. Pain 2005, 115:338–347. Examined placebo analgesic responses among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Rectal placebo was as effective as rectal lidocaine in reducing visceral sensitivity, and both placebo and lidocaine effects endured for the entire 40-minute post-treatment assessment period. A nonopioid mechanism of action was indicated.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Montgomery G, Kirsch I: Mechanisms of placebo pain reduction: an empirical investigation. Psychol Sci 1996; 7:174–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. De Pascalis V, Chiaradia C, Carotenuto E: The contribution of suggestibility and expectation to placebo analgesia phenomenon in an experimental settings. Pain 2002, 96:393–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Montgomery G, Kirsch I: Classical conditioning and the placebo effect. Pain 1997, 72:107–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Verne GN, Robinson ME, Vase L, Price DD: Reversal of visceral and cutaneous hyperalgesia by local rectal anesthesia in irritable bowl syndrome (IBS) patients. Pain 2003, 105:223–230. Rectal lidocaine jelly was superior to placebo in reducing visceral and cutaneous hypersensitivity in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. In contract to Vase et al. [26•], no suggestions for pain relief were provided. These two studies illustrate the power of placebo suggestions in enhancing analgesic responses.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vase L, Price DD, Verne GN, Robinson ME: The contribution of changes in expected pain levels and desire for pain relief to placebo analgesia. In Psychological Modulation of Pain. Edited by Price DD, Bushnell MC. Seattle: I.A.S.P. Press; 2004:207–234.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Price DD, Barrell JJ: Some general laws of human emotion: interrelationships between intensities of desire, expectation and emotional feeling. J Pers 1984, 52:389–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Price DD, Barrell JE, Barrell JJ: A quantitative-experiential analysis of human emotions. Motivation and Emotion 1985, 9:19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Price DD, Barrell JJ: Mechanisms of analgesia produced by hypnosis and placebo suggestions. Prog Brain Res 2000, 122:255–271.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Price DD, Riley J, Barrell JJ: Are lived choices based on emotional processes? Cogn Emot 2001, 15:365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rainville P, Bao QV, Chetrien P: Pain-related emotions modulate experimental pain perception and autonomic responses. Pain 2005, 118:306–318. Used hypnosis to manipulate emotion and examined the effects of emotions on perception of experimental pain. Inductions of negative emotions lead to increased pain ratings, especially ratings of pain unpleasantness. Also, negative emotions were accompanied by high desire and low expectations for pain relief, whereas the reverse was true for hypnotic relaxation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fields H: State-dependent opioid control of pain. Nature Rev Neurosci 2004, 5:565–575.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Petrovic P, Dietrich T, Fransson P, et al.: Placebo in emotional processing—induced expectations of anxiety relief activate a generalized modulatory network. Neuron 2005, 46:957–969.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zubieta J, Smith YR, Bueller JA, et al.: Regional mu opioid receptor regulation of sensory and affective dimensions of pain. Science 2001, 293:311–315.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Moerman DE: The meaning response and the ethics of avoiding placebos. Eval Health Prof 2002, 25:399–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Benedetti F: How the doctor’s words affect the patient’s brain. Eval Health Prof 2002, 25:369–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Florida, P.O. Box 100416, 32610-0416, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Donald D. Price PhD

Authors
  1. Donald D. Price PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger B. Fillingim PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael E. Robinson PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donald D. Price PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Price, D.D., Fillingim, R.B. & Robinson, M.E. Placebo analgesia: Friend or foe?. Curr Rheumatol Rep 8, 418–424 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-006-0035-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-006-0035-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation