Objectives To gauge the frequency and circumstances of use of placebo in clinical practice and the attitudes towards its use among those who administer it. Design Retrospective questionnaire. Setting Two large hospitals and various community clinics in the Jerusalem area. Participants 31 physicians working in hospital inpatient and outpatient departments, 31 head nurses working in hospital inpatient departments, and 27 family physicians working in community clinics. Main outcome measures Self report of frequency and circumstances of, and attitudes towards, use of placebo. Results Among the 89 respondents, 53 (60%) used placebos (95% confidence interval 49% to 70%). Among users, 33 (62%) prescribed a placebo as often as once a month or more; 36 (68%) told patients they were receiving actual medication; 15 (28%) considered that placebos were a diagnostic tool; and 48/51 (94%) reported that they found placebos generally or occasionally effective. Conclusion Most practitioners questioned in this study continue to use placebos. Used wisely, placebos might have a legitimate place in therapeutics. Wider recognition of the practice and debate about its implications are imperative.

While discussions of the ethics of the placebo have usually dealt with their use in a research context, the authors address here the question of the placebo in clinical practice. It is argued, firstly, that the placebo can be an effective treatment. Secondly, it is demonstrated that its use does not always entail deception. Finally guidelines are presented according to which the placebo may be used for clinical purposes. It is suggested that in select cases, use of the placebo may even be morally imperative. The argument is illustrated by three case vignettes.

IntroductionThe evaluation of response to pharmacological treatment in MDD requires 4–8 weeks. Therefore, the ability to predict response, and especially lack of response to treatment, as early as possible after treatment onset or change, is of prime significance. Many studies have demonstrated significant results regarding the ability to use EEG and ERP markers, including attention-associated markers such as P300, for early prediction of response to treatment. But these markers are derived from long EEG/ERP samples, often from multiple channels, which render them impractical for frequent sampling.Methods and resultsWe developed a new electrophysiological attention-associated marker from a single channel (two electrodes), using 1-min samples with auditory oddball stimuli. This work presents an initial evaluation of the ability to use this marker’s dynamics between repetitive measures for early (<2 weeks) differentiation between responders and non-responders to antidepressive treatment, in 26 patients with various levels of depression and heterogeneous treatment interventions. The slope of change in the marker between early consecutive samples was negative in the non-responders, but not in the responders. This differentiation was stronger for patients suffering from severe depression (p < 0.001).ConclusionThis pilot study supports the feasibility of the EEG marker for early recognition of treatment-resistant depression. If verified in large-scale prospective studies, it can contribute to research and clinical work.

No abstract

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) involves characteristic electroencephalographic (EEG) activity. We developed a single-channel EEG marker for attention: the Brain Engagement Index (BEI’). In this study, we evaluated the use of BEI’ for distinguishing between ADHD patients and controls, and for monitoring the effect of pharmacological treatment on ADHD patients. The BEI’ values of 20 ADHD patients and 10 controls were measured using a 1-min auditory oddball paradigm and a continuous performance test (CPT) task. We showed that CPT BEI’ is trait-specific and separates controls from ADHD patients. At the same time, oddball BEI’ is state-specific and identifies differences in attention level within the two groups of ADHD participants and controls. The oddball BEI’ also associates with response to treatment, after distinguishing between treatment effect and learning/time effect. The combined use of this marker with common computerized tests holds promise for research and clinical use in ADHD. Further work is required to confirm the results of the present study.