New evidence placebos work, even when people know they're placebos

New evidence placebos work, even when people know they're placebos
Placebo drugs, containing no active ingredients, can still confer beneficial effects in people who are aware they are not real medications
Placebo drugs, containing no active ingredients, can still confer beneficial effects in people who are aware they are not real medications
View 1 Image
Placebo drugs, containing no active ingredients, can still confer beneficial effects in people who are aware they are not real medications
Placebo drugs, containing no active ingredients, can still confer beneficial effects in people who are aware they are not real medications

A new study is offering more evidence that placebo drugs can still work even when people are aware they are taking inactive pills. The research builds on a growing body of study suggesting “honest” placebos could have a role in modern clinical practice.

Doctors have utilized of the power of the placebo for centuries. In fact, until the mid-20 century, placebos were administered by physicians to patients on a regular basis and medical ethicists at the time described them as a “necessary deception.”

Modern medicine generally strives to eliminate placebo effect measures from studies. Clinical trials for example, are ideally double-blinded, meaning neither the patients nor the doctors are aware which intervention is active and which is a placebo. This is to eliminate any kind of response bias that could muddy the data. But some scientists suggest the power of the placebo should be harnessed and modern medicine could incorporate non-deceptive placebos into clinical practices.

"Just think: What if someone took a side-effect free sugar pill twice a day after going through a short convincing video on the power of placebos and experienced reduced stress as a result?" asks lead author on the new study, Darwin Guevarra.

A doctor prescribing a patient a placebo with the pretense of it being a real and beneficial drug obviously violates the fundamental principles underpinning modern medical ethics. However, a compelling body of research suggests placebos can still be effective in some cases without a pretense of deception.

This new research began by investigating prior non-deceptive placebo studies. Many studies delivered promisingly positive results for conditions such as irritable bowel syndrome, emotional distress and chronic back pain, but they also primarily recorded beneficial measures using self-reported data.

“Out of twenty-six published non-deceptive placebo studies to date, eight included objective behavioral or biological measures,” the researchers write in the study. “Only one of these eight studies showed an effect on behavioral outcomes, and no direct effects on biological outcomes have been documented.”

So the researchers devised an experiment to test whether a non-deceptive placebo generated improvements in an objective neural biomarker relating to emotional distress. The recruited subjects were exposed to a series of either neutral or negative images and a neural biomarker called late positive potential (LPP) was measured.

“Participants in the non-deceptive placebo group read about placebo effects and were then asked to inhale a nasal spray consisting of saline solution,” the researchers write in the study. “They were told that the nasal spray was a placebo that contained no active ingredients, but would help reduce their negative emotional reactions to viewing distressing images if they believed it would. Participants in the control group read about the neural processes underlying the experience of pain and were also asked to inhale the same saline solution spray; however, they were told that the purpose of the nasal spray was to improve the clarity of the physiological readings we were recording in the study.”

The results revealed subjects in the non-deceptive placebo group showed greater decreases in LPP measurements compared to the control group. This offers some of the first evidence to show a non-deceptive placebo can influence an objective neural biomarker of emotional distress.

"These findings provide initial support that non-deceptive placebos are not merely a product of response bias – telling the experimenter what they want to hear – but represent genuine psychobiological effects," says study co-author, Ethan Kross.

Jason Moser, a psychologist from Michigan State University, and co-author on the new study, suggests there could be a place for these kinds of “honest” placebos in modern clinical practice. Of course, more research is needed to home in on the conditions for which this kind of treatment would be most effective. Plus, patients receiving placebos would need to be very clearly informed they are receiving an inactive medication to make sure the practice is ethical.

"Non-deceptive placebos were born so that you could possibly use them in routine practice,” says Moser. “So rather than prescribing a host of medications to help a patient, you could give them a placebo, tell them it can help them and chances are – if they believe it can, then it will."

The new study was published in the journal Nature Communications.

Source: Michigan State University

This sounds like the effects of hypnosis. It would be interesting to check whether patients who responded well to taking a placebo, were also good hypnotic subjects. Not everyone is.
This story is one of the really loopy ones. You tell the patient he is getting a placebo pill,and to think warm,fuzzy thoughts,and that will benefit him. I can see it working in SOME people for a SHORT time,but not for extended periods.
This is a discussion best moderated by physicians. We attempt to ease patient's fears, pains, and symptoms with our demeanor, our knowledge of physiology & therapeutic skills, and most of the time with active pharmaceutical agents. There are some conditions in which a placebo - even if it is an inert pill that DOESN'T CONTAIN sugar - such as diabetes - would most certainly fail. There are alternate therapies for many syndromes, there are 'pie-in-the-sky' approaches that don't seem to fit the science, but who can argue with success? Other than NEW ATLAS commenters.

I am a physician and I have no qualms with the use of placebos. Nor with my patients seeing chiropractors, massage therapists, psychiatrists and psychologists, hypnotists and even seeing their ministers to help with their complaints. There may well be a component of hypnotism involved in the effectiveness of placebos, as many physicians really try to connect with and help their patients. A truly concerned practitioner using placebo as a last ditch effort isn't going to sandbag the patient (outside of a study where the participants knew they were prescribed placebos) by minimizing the 'probable' effect of a placebo. No, we treat with compassion even when we have no treatment to avail.

Yes, I am one of those "Loopy" physicians who have debated the ethics of prescribing a short course of "placebos" for patients who should have responded to previous therapeutic interventions - only to be most pleasantly surprised by the result. Loopy to you maybe, but windykites may be on to something.