Open-label placebos appear to have positive clinical effects compared to no treatment. Caution is warranted when interpreting these results due to the limited number of trials identified, lack of blinding, and the fact that positive messages were included alongside open-label placebos. Larger definitive trials are now warranted to explore the potential patient benefit of open-label placebos, to investigate the relative contributions of positive suggestions, and ethical implications.

IntroductionPlacebos have long provided a robust control for evaluating active pharmacological preparations, but frequently demonstrate a variable therapeutic effect when delivered in double-blinded placebo-controlled trials. Delivery of placebos as treatment alone has been considered unethical, as it has been thought that deception is essential for their effect. However, recent evidence suggests that clinical benefit can be derived from placebos delivered without deception (unblinded/open-label) manner. Here, we present a protocol for the first systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of the effects of non-deceptive placebos compared with no treatment.Methods and analysisThis protocol will compare the effect of placebos delivered non-deceptively to no treatment. It will also assess the methods of delivery used for non-deceptive placebos. Studies will be sought through relevant database searches and will include those within disease settings and those among healthy controls. To be included, trials must include both non-deceptive (open-label) placebo and no treatment groups. All data extraction and analysis will be conducted by two independent reviewers. The analysis will evaluate any differences in outcome measures between the non-deceptive placebo and no treatment groups. Outcome measures will be the clinically-relevant outcomes detailed in the primary papers. The delivery methods, such as verbal instructions, which may provide positive expectations and outcomes, of non-deceptive placebos will also be assessed. Each study will be comprehensively assessed for bias. Subgroup analyses will identify any discrepancies among heterogeneous data.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval. The completed review will be widely disseminated by publication and social media where appropriate. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (2015:CRD42015023347).

Stress is known to be associated with adverse health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns are examples of chronic stressors. Lockdown measures inadvertently caused significant psychological distress and became a powerful source of anxiety/stress, sleep disturbances, nutritional changes and weight gain. Stress is known to impact women's health specifically, through hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis dysfunction and resultant ovulatory dysfunction. Such dysfunction may manifest in menstrual irregularities and/or infertility due to hypothalamic hypogonadism. Here, we review the key physiological mediators of stress and associated ovulatory dysfunction. The kisspeptinergic system is comprised of sets of neurons located in the hypothalamus, the rostral periventricular region of the third ventricle (RP3V) and the arcuate nucleus (ARC). This system links nutrition, reproductive signals and stress. It plays a key role in the function of the HPG axis. During chronic stress, the kisspeptinergic system affects the HPG axis, GnRH pulsatility, and, therefore, ovulation. Leptin, insulin and corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) are thought to be additional key modulators in the behavioral responses to chronic stress and may contribute to stress-related ovulatory dysfunction. This mini-review also summarizes and appraises the available evidence on the negative impact of chronic stress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. It proposes physiological mechanisms to explain the observed effects on women's reproductive health and well-being. The review suggests areas for future research.

Obesity in women of reproductive age has a number of adverse metabolic effects, including Type II Diabetes (T2D), dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease. It is associated with increased menstrual irregularity, ovulatory dysfunction, development of insulin resistance and infertility. In women, estradiol is not only critical for reproductive function, but they also control food intake and energy expenditure. Food intake is known to change during the menstrual cycle in humans. This change in food intake is largely mediated by estradiol, which acts directly upon anorexigenic and orexigenic neurons, largely in the hypothalamus. Estradiol also acts indirectly with peripheral mediators such as glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1). Like estradiol, GLP-1 acts on receptors at the hypothalamus. This review describes the physiological and pathophysiological mechanisms governing the actions of estradiol during the menstrual cycle on food intake and energy expenditure and how estradiol acts with other weight-controlling molecules such as GLP-1. GLP-1 analogs have proven to be effective both to manage obesity and T2D in women. This review also highlights the relationship between steroid hormones and women's mental health. It explains how a decline or imbalance in estradiol levels affects insulin sensitivity in the brain. This can cause cerebral insulin resistance, which contributes to the development of conditions such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s disease. The proper use of both estradiol and GLP-1 analogs can help to manage obesity and preserve an optimal mental health in women by reducing the mechanisms that trigger neurodegenerative disorders.

No abstract