%0 Journal Article %A Gonçalo S Duarte %A Beatrice Mainoli %A Filipe B Rodrigues %A Fábio Rato %A Tiago Machado %A Joaquim J Ferreira %A João Costa %T Placebo response in chronic peripheral neuropathic pain trials: systematic review and meta-analysis %D 2022 %R 10.1101/2022.02.18.22271196 %J medRxiv %P 2022.02.18.22271196 %X Objective To estimate the magnitude of the placebo and nocebo responses in chronic peripheral neuropathic pain (CNP) and explore possible associations with trial characteristics.Methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2020. We included placebo-controlled RCTs of ≥8 weeks investigating first-line pharmacological interventions for CNP. Primary endpoints were the placebo response, the proportion of patients receiving placebo with pain intensity reduction (PIR) ≥30% from baseline, and the nocebo response, the proportion of patients receiving placebo experiencing adverse events (AEs). Screening, data extraction, and bias assessment (with the Cochrane risk of bias tool) were conducted by independent reviewers. We pooled data using a random-effects model.Results We included 50 trials, with a combined 5,693 participants allocated to placebo, conducted between 1998 and 2020. Overall, 38% of patients receiving placebo reported PIR≥30% (95% CI 34 to 42, I2=86%); 23% reported PIR≥50% (95% CI 20 to 26; I2=81%). 50% of patients receiving placebo reported AEs (95% CI 0.43 to 0.58; I2=97%); 2% reported serious AEs (95% CI 2 to 3; I2=58%). In patients receiving active interventions, the placebo response accounts for 75% of the treatment effect on PIR≥30%, and the nocebo response accounts for 75% of the AEs. Interpreted inversely, only 25% of responses and 25% of adverse events can be attributed to the intervention. Publication year positively correlated with PIR≥30% and negatively correlated with AEs. Female sex negatively correlated with AEs.Conclusions The placebo and nocebo responses in parallel-designed RCTs in CNP are substantial and should be considered in trial interpretation and in the design of future trials.Competing Interest StatementJJF received speaker and consultant fees from Novartis, AbbVie, BIAL, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Biogen, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic. FBR received consultant fees from Roche and GLG. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose. Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/02/19/2022.02.18.22271196.full.pdf