OBJECTIVES: The current paper explores the psychological predictors of nocebo hyperalgesia and whether the reduction of nocebo hyperalgesia can be predicted by susceptibility to nocebo hyperalgesia and psychological characteristics. METHODS: Nocebo effects on pressure pain were first experimentally induced in 83 healthy female participants through conditioning with open-label instructions about the pain-worsening function of a sham TENS device to assess susceptibility to nocebo hyperalgesia. Participants were then randomized to 1 out of 2 nocebo-reduction conditions (counterconditioning/extinction) or to continued nocebo-conditioning (control), each combined with open-label instructions about the new sham device function. Dispositional optimism, trait and state anxiety, pain catastrophizing, fear of pain, and body vigilance were assessed at baseline. RESULTS: The results showed that lower optimism and higher trait anxiety were related to a stronger induction of nocebo hyperalgesia. Moreover, a stronger induction of nocebo hyperalgesia and higher trait anxiety predicted a larger nocebo reduction across interventions. Also, nocebo hyperalgesia and optimism moderated the effects of the nocebo-reduction interventions, whereby larger nocebo hyperalgesia and lower optimism were associated with a larger nocebo reduction after counterconditioning, compared with control, and also extinction for larger nocebo hyperalgesia. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that open-label conditioning leads to stronger nocebo hyperalgesia when trait anxiety is high and dispositional optimism is low, while these psychological characteristics, along with larger nocebo hyperalgesia, also predict open-label counterconditioning to be an effective nocebo-reduction strategy. Susceptibility to nocebo hyperalgesia, trait anxiety, and dispositional optimism might be indicators of a flexible pain regulatory system.@en

Introduction: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. Objective: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. Methods: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. Results: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. Conclusions: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.@en

Background: Nocebo effects can adversely affect the experience of physical symptoms, such as pain and itch. Nocebo effects on itch and pain have shown to be induced by conditioning with thermal heat stimuli and reduced by counterconditioning. However, open-label counterconditioning, in which participants are informed about the placebo content of the treatment, has not been investigated, while this can be highly relevant for clinical practice. Furthermore, (open-label) conditioning and counterconditioning has not been investigated for pain modalities relevant to musculoskeletal disorders, such as pressure pain. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, we investigated in 110 healthy female participants whether nocebo effects on pressure pain combined with open-label verbal suggestions can be (1) induced via conditioning and (2) reduced via counterconditioning. Participants were allocated to either a nocebo- or sham-conditioning group. Next, the nocebo group was allocated to either counterconditioning, extinction or continued nocebo conditioning; sham conditioning was followed by placebo conditioning. Results: Nocebo effects were significantly larger after nocebo conditioning than sham conditioning (d = 1.27). Subsequently, a larger reduction of the nocebo effect was found after counterconditioning than after extinction (d = 1.02) and continued nocebo conditioning (d = 1.66), with effects similar to placebo conditioning (following sham conditioning). Conclusions: These results show that (counter)conditioning combined with open-label suggestions can modulate nocebo effects on pressure pain, which provides promise in designing learning-based treatments to reduce nocebo effects in patients with chronic pain disorders, particularly for musculoskeletal disorders. Significance: Few studies have investigated the efficacy counterconditioning to reduce nocebo effects. Whereas typically deceptive procedures are used, these are not ethically appropriate for use in clinical practice. The current study demonstrates that open-label counterconditioning in a pain modality relevant for many chronic pain conditions may be a promising new strategy for reducing nocebo effects in a non-deceptive and ethical manner, which provides promise in designing learning-based treatments to reduce nocebo effects in patients with chronic pain disorders.@en