Skip to main content
Log in

Placebo und Nocebo

Wie einsetzen bzw. vermeiden?

Placebo and nocebo

How can they be used or avoided?

  • Arzneimitteltherapie
  • Published:
Der Internist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Erwartungen des Patienten erhöhen die Wahrscheinlichkeit ihres Eintretens und sind so Hauptauslöser von Placebo- und Noceboeffekten. Starke Placeboeffekte sind nicht nur regelmäßig bei medikamentöser oder nichtmedikamentöser Scheinbehandlung in placebokontrollierten Studien nachweisbar, sondern tragen zu jeder echten Behandlung wesentlich bei. Für die maximale Wirksamkeit von Medikamenten und anderen Behandlungen sind daher begleitende Worte notwendig, mit positiven Ausdrücken und nicht mit Negationen. Diese Verstärkung durch Placeboeffekte ist wichtiger als die durchaus verbreitete Anwendung von Placebos, die wegen der Aufklärungs- und Therapiepflicht und der ebenfalls inhärent induzierten Nebenwirkungen problematisch bleibt. Jedes falsche Sprechen über Symptome oder Nebenwirkungen kann diese verstärken oder auslösen. Noceboeffekte sind nicht eingebildet, sondern echte Symptome, die durchaus gefährlich sein können und einen beträchtlichen Teil behandelter Nebenwirkungen ausmachen. Sie sollten durch mehr Bewusstsein und Kenntnisse darüber vermieden oder neutralisiert werden. Dies gelingt bei der Risikoaufklärung durch Kombination mit Positivem, wie dem erwarteten Nutzen der Behandlung oder der Prophylaxe und Therapierbarkeit von Nebenwirkungen. Vorhandene Negativerwartungen werden durchbrochen, indem andere Möglichkeiten wieder in das Blickfeld gerückt und Negativerfahrungen in der Vergangenheit belassen werden. Placebo- und Noceboeffekte wirken im Kontext, das heißt in Abhängigkeit von den individuellen Patientenerfahrungen und -vorstellungen sowie der Arzt-Patienten-Beziehung, die den besten Schutz vor Aufklärungsschäden darstellen kann. Die Erwartung und ihre Effekte werden außerdem stark von der Erwartung des Arztes und von Mitpatienten, Medien und Gesellschaft beeinflusst.

Abstract

The expectations of patients enhance the probability of their occurrence and are thereby the main triggers for inducing placebo and nocebo responses. Strong placebo effects are not only regularly observed in pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical sham treatment in placebo controlled studies but also make a considerable contribution to any real treatment. The accompanying words are essential to ensure maximum impact of drugs and other forms of treatment. They should contain positive expressions instead of negations. Such a strengthening of drug therapy by placebo effects is more important than the widespread use of placebos that remains a problem because of the obligation to provide information and effective therapy and because of inherently induced side effects. Any false comments about symptoms or side effects can aggravate or induce them. Nocebo effects are not imagined but real symptoms that can definitely be harmful. They constitute a considerable proportion of the side effects requiring treatment. Awareness and knowledge is needed to prevent or neutralize them. Nocebo effects are avoidable when risk information is always directly combined with positive aspects, such as the expected benefits of the treatment or the prophylactic measures and therapeutic options for side effects. Existing negative expectations are disrupted by providing more alternative options and by leaving negative experiences in the past where they belong. Placebo and nocebo effects are strongly sensitive to the context. They are dependent on the experiences and conceptions of the individual patient, as well as on the physician-patient relationship. The latter can provide the best protection against harm from risk disclosure. In addition, the expectations of patients and their consequences are strongly affected by the expectations of the treating doctor, by fellow patients, the media and society.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Afilalo M, Etropolski MS, Kuperwasser B et al (2010) Efficacy and safety of Tapentadol extended release compared with oxycodone controlled release for the management of moderate to severe chronic pain related to osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase III study. Clin Drug Investig 30:489–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Benedetti F (2013) Placebo and the new physiology of the doctor-patient relationship. Physiol Rev 93:1207–1246

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bingel U, Wanigasekera V, Wiech K et al (2011) The effect of treatment expectation on drug efficacy: imaging the analgesic benefit of the opioid remifentanil. Sci Transl Med 3(70):70ra14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bundesärztekammer (2010) Stellungnahme des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats der Bundesärztekammer „Placebo in der Medizin“. Dtsch Arztebl 107(28–29):1417–1421

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cocco G (2009) Erectile dysfunction after therapy with metoprolol: the Hawthorne effect. Cardiology 112:174–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Colagiuri B, Zachariae R (2010) Patient expectancy and post-chemotherapy nausea: a meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med 40:3–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colloca L, Benedetti F (2005) Placebos and painkillers: is mind as real as matter? Nat Rev Neurosci 6:545–552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daniels AM, Sallie R (1981) Headache, lumbar puncture, and expectation. Lancet 1(8227):1003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fehse K, Maikowski L, Simmank F et al (2015) Placebo responses to original vs generic ASA brands during exposure to noxious heat: A pilot fMRI study of neurofunctional correlates. Pain Med 16(10):1967–1974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Finniss DG, Kaptchuk TJ, Franklin Miller F et al (2010) Biological, clinical, and ethical advances of placebo eff ects. Lancet 375:686–695

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Flaten MA, Simonsen T, Olsen H (1999) Drug-related information generates placebo and nocebo responses that modify the drug response. Psychosom Med 61(2):250–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gupka A, Thompson D, Whitehouse A et al (2017) Adverse events associated with unblended, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavican Cardiac Outcome Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase. Lancet. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31075-9

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hahn RA (1997) The nocebo phenomenon: concept, evidence, and implications for public health. Prev Med 26:607–611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansen E (2015) Ärztliche Kommunikation – Worte wie Medizin. In: Muffler E (Hrsg) Kommunikation in der Psychoonkologie, Bd. 5. Carl-Auer, Heidelberg, S 83–95

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hansen E, Bejenke C (2010) Negative und positive Suggestionen in der Anästhesie – Ein Beitrag zu einer verbesserten Kommunikation mit ängstlichen Patienten bei Operationen. Anästhesist 59:199–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Häuser W, Hansen E, Enck P (2012) Nocebo phenomena in medicine: Their relevance in everyday clinical practice. Dtsch Ärzteblatt Int 109(26):459–465

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jonas WB, Crawford C, Colloca L (2015) To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials. BMJ Open 5(12):e009655

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Juergens MC, Seekatz B, Moosdorf RG et al (2010) Illness beliefs before cardiac surgery predict disability, quality of life, and depression 3 months later. J Psychosom Res 68:553–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kam-Hansen S, Jakubowski M, Kelley JM et al (2014) Altered placebo and drug labeling changes the outcome of episodic migraine attacks. Sci Translat Med 6(218):218ra5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kong J, Gollub RL, Polich G et al (2008) A functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the neural mechanisms of hyperalgesic nocebo effect. J Neurosci 28:13354–13362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Levine JD, Gordon NC, Smith R et al (1981) Analgesic responses to morphine and placebo in individuals with postoperative pain. Pain 10:379–389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Linde K, Friedrichs C, Alscher A et al (2014) The use of placebo and non-specific therapies and their relation to basic professional attitudes and the use of complementary therapies among German physicians – a cross-sectional survey. PLOS ONE 9(4):e92938

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lown B (2004) Die verlorene Kunst des Heilens, 2. Aufl. Schattauer, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meissner K, Linde K (2013) Krankheitsspezifische Ausprägung von Placeboeffekten. Expertise für die Bundesärztekammer. BÄK, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meissner K, Fässler M, Rücker G et al (2013) Differntial effectiveness of placebo treatments: a systematic review of migraine prophylaxis. JAMA Intern Med 173(21):1941–1951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pfingsten M, Leibing E, Harter W et al (2001) Fear-avoidance behavior and anticipation of pain in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2:259–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Prior M (2011) MiniMax-Interventionen, 9. Aufl. Carl Auer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rief W, Shedden-Mora MC, Laferton JA et al (2017) Preoperative optimization of patient expectations improves long-term outcome in heart surgery patients: results of the randomized controlled PSY-HEART trial. BMC Med 15(1):4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Silvestri A, Galetta P, Cerquetani E et al (2003) Report of erectile dysfunction after therapy with beta-blockers is related to patient knowledge of side effects and is reversed by placebo. Eur Heart J 24:1928–1932

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stovner LJ, Oftedal G, Straume A et al (2008) Nocebo as headache trigger: evidence from a sham-controlled provocation study with RF fields. Acta Neurol Scand 188:67–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Zech N, Seemann M, Hansen E (2014) Noceboeffekte und Negativsuggestionen in der Anästhesie. Anaesthesist 63(11):816–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zech N, Seemann M, Hansen E (2015) Nocebowirkung durch Aufklärung. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther 50:64–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zech N, Seemann M, Grzesiek et al (2017) The weakening effect of negative communication in the clinical setting: an experimental study on muscular performance. PlosOne. PONE-D-17-22558

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Hansen.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

E. Hansen, N. Zech und K. Meissner geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

M. Wehling, Mannheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, E., Zech, N. & Meissner, K. Placebo und Nocebo. Internist 58, 1102–1110 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-017-0294-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-017-0294-0

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation