University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf
Hamburg, 20251, Germany
NCT Number: NCT03838523
It has been long viewed that placebos cannot be administered in accordance with ethical values because deception is instrumental to the placebo effect. This notion has been shaken up by studies on open-label placebos, showing that placebos can lead to positive effects even though their inert nature is disclosed.
Beneficial effects of double-blind placebos were found to be high in hot flush trials.
The objective of the study is to determine whether an open-label placebo (OLP) treatment is efficacious in alleviating hot flushes and bother among peri- and postmenopausal women.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
Female
Interventional
Not applicable
Hamburg, 20251, Germany
Beneficial effects of double-blind placebos were found to be high in hot flush trials. Recent studies demonstrating the efficacy of placebos without concealment provide a possible way to administer placebos in accordance with ethical and clinical values.
The objective of the study is to determine whether an open-label placebo (OLP) treatment is efficacious in alleviating hot flushes and bother among peri- and postmenopausal women.
In this assessor-blinded, randomized-controlled trial, women with ≥5 daily moderate to severe hot flushes of at least moderate bother are assigned 1:1 to a 4-week OLP treatment or no treatment. Both groups are informed about study objectives including a briefing about the inert nature of placebo pills, why OLP might be effective and the importance of the control group. To explore the duration and maintenance of placebo effects, participants in the OLP group are randomized a second time and divided into two subgroups who either discontinue (OLP 4wk) or continue the OLP treatment (OLP 8wk) for another 4 weeks. All participants receive three study visits: at enrolment, baseline (1 week later), and at post-treatment. A fourth study visit is conducted at 8-week follow-up with the two subgroups OLP 4wk and OLP 8wk. Qualitative interviews about subjective experiences with the OLP treatment are conducted with n = 8 women.
This trial will contribute to the evaluation of OLP treatments in clinical practice and further our understanding about the magnitude of placebo effects in hot flush treatments.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
See group description
Time frame: 4 weeks
The group difference between OLP and no-treatment regarding frequency x severity of hot flushes as assessed by a portable paper diary in which participants record number and severity of hot flushes in realtime
Time frame: 4 weeks
The group difference between OLP and no-treatment regarding bother by hot flushes as assessed by the Hot Flush Rating Scale (Hunter & Liao, 1995). A sum score is calculated which ranges from 3 to 30 with higher scores indicating larger bother by hot flushes.
Time frame: 4 weeks
The group difference between OLP and no-treatment regarding the frequency of hot flushes as assessed by the diary
Time frame: 4 weeks
The group difference between OLP and no-treatment regarding health-related quality of life as assessed by the Women's Health Questionnaire (WHQ; Hunter, 1992; Shin & Shin, 2012). Using the 37-item version of the WHQ, 8 subscales are calculated: Depressed mood, somatic symptoms, memory/concentration, vasomotor symptoms, anxiety/fears, sexual behaviour, sleep problems, and attractiveness. Although part of the questionnaire, we will not analyze the menstrual symptoms scale given that most women in our sample would be post-menopausal. Higher scores indicate better quality of life (e.g., higher scores in sexual behavior indicate that loss of sexual interest and sexual dissatisfaction is not experienced). Scores for each subscale range from 0 (poor health status) to 100 (good health status).
Time frame: 4 weeks
The group difference between OLP and no-treatment regarding global improvement as assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change (Geisser et al. 2010; Guttoso et al. 2003)
Time frame: 4 weeks
The group difference between OLP and no-treatment regarding number of responders at week 4 (≥50% in hot flush frequency at 4 weeks from baseline)
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf
Other
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT07695051
Hot Flashes, Menopause
Istanbul, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial DetailsNCT06049797
Hot Flashes, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06206421
Hot Flashes, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms
Nagoya, Aichi-ken, Japan
View Trial DetailsNCT06812754
Hot Flashes, Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China
View Trial Details