Placebo and other psychological interactions in headache treatment

We present a theory according which a headache treatment acts through a specific biological effect (when it exists), a placebo effect linked to both expectancy and repetition of its administration (conditioning), and a non-specific psychological effect. The respective part of these components varies with the treatments and the clinical situations. During antiquity, suggestions and beliefs were the mainstays of headache treatment. The word placebo appeared at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Controversies about its effect came from an excessive interpretation due to methodological bias, inadequate consideration of the variation of the measure (regression to the mean) and of the natural course of the disease. Several powerful studies on placebo effect showed that the nature of the treatment, the associated announce, the patients’ expectancy, and the repetition of the procedures are of paramount importance. The placebo expectancy is associated with an activation of pre-frontal, anterior cingular, accumbens, and periacqueducal grey opioidergic neurons possibly triggered by the dopaminergic meso-limbic system. In randomized control trials, several arms design could theoretically give information concerning the respective part of the different component of the outcome and control the natural course of the disease. However, for migraine and tension type headache attacks treatment, no three arm (verum, placebo, and natural course) trial is available in the literature. Indirect evidence of a placebo effect in migraine attack treatment, comes from the high amplitude of the improvement observed in the placebo arms (28% of the patients). This figure is lower (6%) when using the harder criterium of pain free at 2 h. But these data disregard the effect of the natural course. For prophylactic treatment with oral medication, the trials performed in the last decades report an improvement in 21% of the patients in the placebo arms. However, in these studies the duration of administration was limited, the control of attacks uncertain as well as the evolution of the co-morbid psycho-pathology. Considering the reviews and meta-analysis of complex prophylactic procedures, it must be concluded that their effect is mostly linked to a placebo and non-specific psychological effects. Acupuncture may have a slight specific effect on tension type headache, but not on migraine. Manual therapy studies do not exhibit difference between manipulation, mobilization, and controls; touch has no proven specific effect. A comprehensive efficacy review of biofeedback studies concludes to a small specific effect on tension type headache but not on migraine. A review of behavioral treatment conclude to an interesting mean improvement but did not demonstrated a specific effect with the exception of a four arm study including a pseudo meditation control group. Expectation-linked placebo, conditioning, and non-specific psychological effects vary according clinical situations and psychological context; likely low in RCT, high after anempathic medical contact, and at its maximum with a desired charismatic healer. The announcements of doctors strongly influence the beliefs of patients, and in consequence their pain and anxiety sensibilities; this modulates the amplitude of the placebo and the non-specific psychological effects and is therefore a major determinant of the therapeutic success. Furthermore, any repetitive contact, even through a placebo, may interfere positively with the psychopathological co-morbidity. One has to keep in mind that the non-specific psychological interactions play a major role in the improvement of the majority of the headache sufferers

Bipolar disorders

Bipolar disorder is characterized by (hypo)manic episodes and depressive episodes which alternate with euthymic periods. It causes serious disability with poor outcome, increased suicidality risk, and significant societal costs. This chapter describes the findings of the PET/SPECT research efforts and the current ideas on the pathophysiology of bipolar disorder. First, the cerebral blood flow and cerebral metabolism findings in the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, subcortical structures, and other brain regions are discussed, followed by an overview of the corticolimbic theory of mood disorders that explains these observations. Second, the neurotransmitter studies are discussed. The serotonin transporter alterations are described, and the variation in study results is explained, followed by an overview of the results of the various dopamine receptor and transporter molecules studies, taking into account also the relation to psychosis. Third, a concise overview is given of dominant bipolar disorder pathophysiological models, proposing starting points for future molecular imaging studies. Finally, the most important conclusions are summarized, followed by remarks about the observed molecular imaging study designs specific for bipolar disorder.</p

What Do We Know About Neuropsychological Aspects Of Schizophrenia?

Application of a neuropsychological perspective to the study of schizophrenia has established a number of important facts about this disorder. Some of the key findings from the existing literature are that, while neurocognitive impairment is present in most, if not all, persons with schizophrenia, there is both substantial interpatient heterogeneity and remarkable within-patient stability of cognitive function over the long-term course of the illness. Such findings have contributed to the firm establishment of neurobiologic models of schizophrenia, and thereby help to reduce the social stigma that was sometimes associated with purely psychogenic models popular during parts of the 20th century. Neuropsychological studies in recent decades have established the primacy of cognitive functions over psychopathologic symptoms as determinants of functional capacity and independence in everyday functioning. Although the cognitive benefits of both conventional and even second generation antipsychotic medications appear marginal at best, recognition of the primacy of cognitive deficits as determinants of functional disability in schizophrenia has catalyzed recent efforts to develop targeted treatments for the cognitive deficits of this disorder. Despite these accomplishments, however, some issues remain to be resolved. Efforts to firmly establish the specific neurocognitive/neuropathologic systems responsible for schizophrenia remain elusive, as do efforts to definitively demonstrate the specific cognitive deficits underlying specific forms of functional impairment. Further progress may be fostered by recent initiatives to integrate neuropsychological studies with experimental neuroscience, perhaps leading to measures of deficits in cognitive processes more clearly associated with specific, identifiable brain systems

Long-Term Satisfaction of Oral Sedation versus Standard-of-Care Intravenous Sedation for Ocular Surgery

Minali Prasad,1,&ast; Deniz Goodman,1,&ast; Jia Xu,2 Sanhit Gutta,2 Daniella Zubieta,2 Sreevardhan Alluri,2 Nicole H Siegel,1,2 Crandall E Peeler,1,2 Hyunjoo J Lee,1,2 Howard J Cabral,3 Manju L Subramanian1,2 1Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; 3Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Manju L Subramanian, Department of Ophthalmology, Boston Medical Center, 85 East Concord Street, &num;8813, Boston, MA, 02118, USA, Tel +1 (617) 638 – 4555, Fax +1 (617) 414 – 2929, Email [email protected]: Long-term patient satisfaction may influence patients’ perspectives of the quality of care and their relationship with their providers. This is a follow up to a comparative effectiveness study investigating oral to intravenous sedation (OIV study). The OIV study found that oral sedation was noninferior in patient satisfaction to standard intravenous (IV) sedation for anterior segment and vitreoretinal surgeries. This study aims to determine if patient satisfaction with oral sedation remained noninferior long term.Patients and Methods: Patients were re-interviewed using the same satisfaction survey given during the OIV study. Statistical analysis involved t-tests for noninferiority of the long-term mean satisfaction score of oral and IV sedation. We also compared the original mean satisfaction score and the follow-up mean satisfaction score for each type of sedation and for both groups combined.Results: Participants were interviewed at a median of 1225.5 days (range 754– 1675 days) from their surgery. The original mean satisfaction score was 5.26 ± 0.79 for the oral treatment group (n = 52) and 5.27 ± 0.64 for the intravenous treatment group (n = 46), demonstrating noninferiority with a difference in mean satisfaction score of 0.015 (p < 0.0001). The follow-up mean satisfaction score was 5.23 ± 0.90 for oral sedation and 5.60 ± 0.61 for IV sedation, with a difference in the mean satisfaction score of 0.371 (p = 0.2071). Satisfaction scores did not differ between the original mean satisfaction score and the follow-up mean satisfaction score for the oral treatment group alone (p = 0.8367), but scores in the intravenous treatment group increased longitudinally (p = 0.0004).Conclusion: In this study, long-term patient satisfaction with oral sedation was not noninferior to satisfaction with IV sedation, unlike our findings with short-term patient satisfaction in our original study. Patient satisfaction also remained unchanged over time for the oral treatment group, but patients in the intravenous treatment group reported higher long-term satisfaction with their anesthesia experience compared to the immediate post-operative period.Keywords: longitudinal, ocular surgery, anesthesia, oral triazolam, intravenous midazolam, noninferiorit

Personalized medicine and opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: Opportunities and challenges

Use of opioid analgesics for pain management has increased dramatically over the past decade, with corresponding increases in negative sequelae including overdose and death. There is currently no well-validated objective means of accurately identifying patients likely to experience good analgesia with low side effects and abuse risk prior to initiating opioid therapy. This paper discusses the concept of data-based personalized prescribing of opioid analgesics as a means to achieve this goal. Strengths, weaknesses, and potential synergism of traditional randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) and practice-based evidence (PBE) methodologies as means to acquire the clinical data necessary to develop validated personalized analgesic-prescribing algorithms are overviewed. Several predictive factors that might be incorporated into such algorithms are briefly discussed, including genetic factors, differences in brain structure and function, differences in neurotransmitter pathways, and patient phenotypic variables such as negative affect, sex, and pain sensitivity. Currently available research is insufficient to inform development of quantitative analgesic-prescribing algorithms. However, responder subtype analyses made practical by the large numbers of chronic pain patients in proposed collaborative PBE pain registries, in conjunction with follow-up validation RCTs, may eventually permit development of clinically useful analgesic-prescribing algorithms. Perspective: Current research is insufficient to base opioid analgesic prescribing on patient characteristics. Collaborative PBE studies in large, diverse pain patient samples in conjunction with follow-up RCTs may permit development of quantitative analgesic-prescribing algorithms that could optimize opioid analgesic effectiveness and mitigate risks of opioid-related abuse and mortality. © 2013 by the American Pain Society.link_to_subscribed_fulltex