ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Case Report: Practical approach to unmask unspecific adverse effects under lipid-lowering medication.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A novel provocation protocol to identify nocebo effects in clinical practice-a proof-of-concept n-of-1 study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nocebo effect, driven by negative expectations rather than pharmacological mechanisms, contributes significantly to medication non-adherence, particularly in lipid-lowering therapy. Up to 50% of reported statin-related adverse effects may result from nocebo responses, leading to unnecessary discontinuation and increased cardiovascular risk. Blinded provocation tests may offer a solution for the differentiation of true drug intolerance from nocebo-driven symptoms. Although this methodology is well-established in experimental studies, it has not been transferred to routine clinical practice so far. We present a 65-year-old female with hypercholesterolemia and cardiovascular risk factors who experienced recurrent, dose-dependent left-sided lower abdominal pain with different lipid-lowering drugs. These symptoms prompted repeated and ultimately continuous treatment discontinuations, each followed by resolution of complaints. Despite extensive evaluations, no organic cause was found. To assess the role of nocebo effects, a six-week single-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover provocation test with a commercially available placebo preparation and atorvastatin placed in neutral pill containers was conducted. Upon initiation of the provocation phase, the patient experienced similar intermittent symptoms under both treatments. The pain ratings on a numeric rating scale did not significantly differ during placebo (mean: 2.75) and atorvastatin administration (mean: 3.26), suggesting that these symptoms were not pharmacologically induced. Following information of the patient, atorvastatin therapy could be continued. During continued intake over several weeks, symptoms further diminished, reinforcing the therapeutic value of addressing nocebo effects. This case report provides for the first time the structured and detailed step-by-step description of a pragmatic approach for a prospective blinded, placebo-controlled provocation testing that can directly be implemented in routine clinical practice. This method enables the distinction of true drug intolerance from nocebo effects, thereby enabling necessary therapies and highlighting its diagnostic and therapeutic potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.