Objective: Expectancies are known to shape pain experiences, but it remains unclear how different types of expectancies contribute to daily pain fluctuations in fibromyalgia. This combined experimental and diary study aims to provide insights into how experimentally-derived nocebo hyperalgesia and other, diary-derived, expectancy-related factors are associated with each other and with daily pain in fibromyalgia. Methods: Forty-one female patients with fibromyalgia first participated in a lab procedure measuring nocebo hyperalgesia magnitude, then filled out an electronic diary 3 times a day over 3 weeks regarding the expectancy-related factors of pain expectancy, anxiety, optimism, and pain-catastrophizing thoughts, and current pain intensity. Results: Our results indicate that experimentally-induced nocebo hyperalgesia was not significantly related to diary-assessed expectancy-related factors and did not predict daily fibromyalgia pain. Higher levels of the self-reported expectancy-related factors pain expectancy and pain catastrophizing, but not anxiety and optimism, predicted moment-to-moment pain increases in fibromyalgia, after controlling for current pain, moment-of-day and all other expectancy-related factors. Conclusion: Our exploratory research findings indicate that self-reported expectancy-related factors, particularly pain expectancy and pain catastrophizing, are potentially more relevant for predicting daily pain experience than experimentally-induced nocebo hyperalgesia. Further translation of nocebo hyperalgesia is needed from experimental to Ecological Momentary Assessment research. Our findings imply that targeting the decrease in pain expectancy and catastrophizing thoughts e.g., via Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, have potential for improving daily pain levels in fibromyalgia.

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.

Nocebo effects are adverse treatment outcomes that are not ascribed to active treatment components. Potentially, their magnitude might be higher in patients with chronic pain compared to healthy controls since patients likely experience treatment failure more frequently. The current study investigated group differences in the induction and extinction of nocebo effects on pressure pain at baseline (N = 69) and 1-month follow-up (N = 56) in female patients with fibromyalgia and matched healthy controls. Nocebo effects were first experimentally induced via classical conditioning combined with instructions on the pain-increasing function of a sham transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device, then decreased via extinction. One month later, the same procedures were repeated to explore their stability. Results suggest that nocebo effects were induced in the healthy control group during baseline and follow-up. In the patient group, nocebo effects were only induced during follow-up, without clear group differences. Extinction was only observed during baseline in the healthy control group. Further comparisons of nocebo effects and extinction indicated no significant changes across sessions, possibly suggesting their overall magnitudes were stable over time and across groups. In conclusion, contrary to our expectations, patients with fibromyalgia did not have stronger nocebo hyperalgesia; instead, they might be less responsive to nocebo manipulations than healthy controls. Perspective: The current study is the first to investigate group differences in experimentally manipulated nocebo hyperalgesia between chronic pain and healthy populations at baseline and 1-month follow-up. Since nocebo effects are common in clinical settings, their investigation in different populations is essential to explain and minimize their adverse effects during treatment.

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.