Background: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. Methods: A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. Results: There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. Conclusions: The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.

Meta-analyses and re-analyses of trial data have not been able to answer some of the essential questions that would allow prediction of placebo responses in clinical trials. We will confront these questions with current empirical evidence. The most important question asks whether the placebo response rates in the drug arm and in the placebo arm are equal. This ‘additive model’ is a general assumption in almost all placebo-controlled drug trials but has rarely been tested. Secondly, we would like to address whether the placebo response is a function of the likelihood of receiving drug/placebo. Evidence suggests that the number of study arms in a trial may determine the size of the placebo and the drug response. Thirdly, we ask what the size of the placebo response is in ‘comparator’ studies with a direct comparison of a (novel) drug against another drug. Meta-analytic and experimental evidence suggests that comparator studies may produce higher placebo response rates when compared with placebo-controlled trials. Finally, we address the placebo response rate outside the laboratory and outside of trials in clinical routine. This question poses a serious challenge whether the drug response in trials can be taken as evidence of drug effects in clinical routine.

Objective: Predicting who responds to placebo treatment – and under which circumstances – has been a question of interest and investigation for generations. However, the literature is disparate and inconclusive. This review aims to identify publications that provide high quality data on the topic of placebo response (PR) prediction. Methods: To identify studies concerned with PR prediction, independent searches were performed in an expert database (for all symptom modalities) and in PubMed (for pain only). Articles were selected when a) they assessed putative predictors prior to placebo treatment and b) an adequate control group was included when the association of predictors and PRs were analyzed. Results: Twenty-one studies were identified, most with pain as dependent variable. Most predictors of PRs were psychological constructs related to actions, expected outcomes and the emotional valence attached to these events (goal-seeking, self-efficacy/-esteem, locus of control, optimism). Other predictors involved behavioural control (desire for control, eating restraint), personality variables (fun seeking, sensation seeking, neuroticism), biological markers (sex, a single nucleotide polymorphism related to dopamine metabolism). Finally, suggestibility and beliefs in expectation biases, body consciousness and baseline symptom severity were found to be predictive. Conclusions: While results are heterogeneous, some congruence of predictors can be identified. PRs mainly appear to be moderated by expectations of how the symptom might change after treatment, or the expectation of how symptom repetition can be coped with. It is suggested to include the listed constructs in future research. Furthermore, a closer look at variables moderating symptom change in control groups seems warranted.