Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jul 14;365(2):119-26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1103319.
In prospective experimental studies in patients with asthma, it is difficult to determine whether responses to placebo differ from the natural course of physiological changes that occur without any intervention. We compared the effects of a bronchodilator, two placebo interventions, and no intervention on outcomes in patients with asthma.
In a double-blind, crossover pilot study, we randomly assigned 46 patients with asthma to active treatment with an albuterol inhaler, a placebo inhaler, sham acupuncture, or no intervention. Using a block design, we administered one each of these four interventions in random order during four sequential visits (3 to 7 days apart); this procedure was repeated in two more blocks of visits (for a total of 12 visits by each patient). At each visit, spirometry was performed repeatedly over a period of 2 hours. Maximum forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) was measured, and patients' self-reported improvement ratings were recorded.
Among the 39 patients who completed the study, albuterol resulted in a 20% increase in FEV(1), as compared with approximately 7% with each of the other three interventions (P<0.001). However, patients' reports of improvement after the intervention did not differ significantly for the albuterol inhaler (50% improvement), placebo inhaler (45%), or sham acupuncture (46%), but the subjective improvement with all three of these interventions was significantly greater than that with the no-intervention control (21%) (P<0.001).
Although albuterol, but not the two placebo interventions, improved FEV(1) in these patients with asthma, albuterol provided no incremental benefit with respect to the self-reported outcomes. Placebo effects can be clinically meaningful and can rival the effects of active medication in patients with asthma. However, from a clinical-management and research-design perspective, patient self-reports can be unreliable. An assessment of untreated responses in asthma may be essential in evaluating patient-reported outcomes. (Funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.).
在针对哮喘患者的前瞻性实验研究中,很难确定安慰剂的反应是否与没有任何干预的生理变化的自然过程不同。我们比较了支气管扩张剂、两种安慰剂干预措施和无干预措施对哮喘患者结局的影响。
在一项双盲、交叉先导研究中,我们将 46 名哮喘患者随机分为沙丁胺醇吸入剂、安慰剂吸入剂、假针灸或无干预组。采用区组设计,我们以随机顺序在四个连续访视中(相隔 3-7 天)各给予这四种干预措施之一;每位患者共进行两次这样的访视(共 12 次)。在每次访视时,在 2 小时的时间内重复进行肺活量测定。测量 1 秒用力呼气量(FEV1)的最大值,并记录患者的自我报告改善评分。
在完成研究的 39 名患者中,与其他三种干预措施(安慰剂吸入剂、假针灸或无干预)的约 7%相比,沙丁胺醇导致 FEV1 增加了 20%(P<0.001)。然而,患者在干预后报告的改善情况在沙丁胺醇吸入剂(改善 50%)、安慰剂吸入剂(改善 45%)或假针灸(改善 46%)之间并无显著差异,但所有这三种干预措施的主观改善均明显大于无干预对照(改善 21%)(P<0.001)。
尽管沙丁胺醇改善了这些哮喘患者的 FEV1,但并非两种安慰剂干预措施,与自我报告的结果相比,沙丁胺醇并未带来额外的益处。安慰剂效应可能具有临床意义,并可与哮喘患者的积极药物治疗效果相媲美。然而,从临床管理和研究设计的角度来看,患者的自我报告可能不可靠。评估哮喘患者的未治疗反应可能对于评估患者报告的结局至关重要。(由国立补充与替代医学中心资助)。