We investigated the mechanisms underlying the activation of endogenous opioids in placebo analgesia by using the model of human experimental ischemic arm pain. Different types of placebo analgesic responses were evoked by means of cognitive expectation cues, drug conditioning, or a combination of both. Drug conditioning was performed by means of either the opioid agonist morphine hydrochloride or the nonopioid ketorolac tromethamine. Expectation cues produced placebo responses that were completely blocked by the opioid antagonist naloxone. Expectation cues together with morphine conditioning produced placebo responses that were completely antagonized by naloxone. Morphine conditioning alone (without expectation cues) induced a naloxone-reversible placebo effect. By contrast, ketorolac conditioning together with expectation cues elicited a placebo effect that was blocked by naloxone only partially. Ketorolac conditioning alone produced placebo responses that were naloxone-insensitive. Therefore, we evoked different types of placebo responses that were either naloxone-reversible or partially naloxone-reversible or, otherwise, naloxone-insensitive, depending on the procedure used to evoke the placebo response. These findings show that cognitive factors and conditioning are balanced in different ways in placebo analgesia, and this balance is crucial for the activation of opioid or nonopioid systems. Expectation triggers endogenous opioids, whereas conditioning activates specific subsystems. In fact, if conditioning is performed with opioids, placebo analgesia is mediated via opioid receptors, if conditioning is performed with nonopioid drugs, other nonopioid mechanisms result to be involved.

Response expectancies have been proposed as the major determinant of placebo effects. Here we report that different expectations produce different analgesic effects which in turn can be harnessed in clinical practice. Thoracotomized patients were treated with buprenorphine on request for 3 consecutive days, together with a basal intravenous infusion of saline solution. However, the symbolic meaning of this basal infusion was changed in three different groups of patients. The first group was told nothing about any analgesic effect (natural history). The second group was told that the basal infusion was either a powerful painkiller or a placebo (classic double-blind administration). The third group was told that the basal infusion was a potent painkiller (deceptive administration). Therefore, whereas the analgesic treatment was exactly the same in the three groups, the verbal instructions about the basal infusion differed. The placebo effect of the saline basal infusion was measured by recording the doses of buprenorphine requested over the three-days treatment. We found that the double-blind group showed a reduction of buprenorphine requests compared to the natural history group. However, this reduction was even larger in the deceptive administration group. Overall, after 3 days of placebo infusion, the first group received 11.55 mg of buprenorphine, the second group 9.15 mg, and the third group 7.65 mg. Despite these dose differences, analgesia was the same in the three groups. These results indicate that different verbal instructions about certain and uncertain expectations of analgesia produce different placebo analgesic effects, which in turn trigger a dramatic change of behaviour leading to a significant reduction of opioid intake.

Despite the increasing research on placebos in recent times, little is known about the nocebo effect, a phenomenon that is opposite to the placebo effect and whereby expectations of symptom worsening play a crucial role. By studying experimental ischemic arm pain in healthy volunteers and by using a neuropharmacological approach, we found that verbally induced nocebo hyperalgesia was associated to hyperactivity of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, as assessed by means of adrenocorticotropic hormone and cortisol plasma concentrations. Both nocebo hyperalgesia and HPA hyperactivity were antagonized by the benzodiazepine diazepam, suggesting that anxiety played a major role in these effects. The administration of the mixed cholecystokinin (CCK) type-A/B receptor antagonist proglumide blocked nocebo hyperalgesia completely but had no effect on HPA hyperactivity, which suggests a specific involvement of CCK in the hyperalgesic but not in the anxiety component of the nocebo effect. Importantly, both diazepam and proglumide did not show analgesic properties on basal pain, because they acted only on the nocebo-induced pain increase. These data indicate a close relationship between anxiety and nocebo hyperalgesia, in which the CCKergic systems play a key role in anxiety-induced hyperalgesia. These results, together with previous findings showing that placebo analgesia is mediated by endogenous opioids, suggest that the analgesic placebo/hyperalgesic nocebo phenomenon may involve the opposite activation of endogenous opioidergic and CCKergic systems.

Individual differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, the type of pain and the method of drug administration can account for the response variability to analgesics. By integrating a clinical and an experimental approach, we report here that another important source of variability is represented by individual differences in non-specific (placebo) activation of endogenous opioid systems. In the first part of this study, we analyzed the effectiveness of buprenorphine, tramadol, ketorolac and metamizol in the clinical setting, where the placebo effect was completely eliminated by means of hidden infusions. We found that the hidden injections were significantly less effective and less variable compared with open injections (in full view of the subject), suggesting that part of the response variability was due to non-specific factors (placebo). Since we could not administer the opioid antagonist, naloxone, to these patients, in the second part of this study, we induced experimental ischemic arm pain in healthy volunteers and found that, as occurred in clinical pain, the analgesic response to a hidden injection of the non-opioid ketorolac was less effective and less variable than an open injection. Most importantly, we obtained the same effects by adding naloxone to an open injection of ketorolac, thus blocking the opioid-mediated placebo component of analgesia. These findings indicate that both the psychological (hidden injection) and pharmacological (naloxone) blockade of the placebo response reduce the effectiveness of, and the response variability to, analgesic drugs. Therefore, an important source of response variability to analgesics appears to be due to differences in non-specific activation of endogenous opioid systems.

We induced specific expectations of analgesia on four different parts of the body to understand how endogenous opioid systems are activated by expectancies. The left hand, right hand, left foot, and right foot were simultaneously stimulated by means of a subcutaneous injection of capsaicin, which produces a painful burning sensation. Specific expectations of analgesia were induced by applying a placebo cream on one of these body parts and by telling the subjects that it was a powerful local anesthetic. In such a way, expectancy of the anesthetic effect was directed only toward the part on which the placebo cream was applied. We found that a placebo analgesic response occurred only on the treated part, whereas no variation in pain sensitivity was found on the untreated parts. If the same experiment was performed after an intravenous infusion of the opioid antagonist naloxone, this highly spatial-specific placebo response was totally abolished, indicating that it was completely mediated by endogenous opioid systems. These findings show that a spatially directed expectation of pain reduction is capable of inducing a specific effect only on the part of the body which is the target of the expectation. Most important, this specific effect is mediated by endogenous opioids, indicating that placebo-activated opioids do not act on the entire body but only on the part where expectancy is directed. This suggests that a highly organized and somatotopic network of endogenous opioids links expectation, attention, and body schema.