World's Most Common Pain Relief Drug May Induce Risky Behavior, Research Suggests
Acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol and sold widely under the brand names Tylenol and Panadol, may also increase risk-taking, according to research from 2020 that measured changes in people's behavior when under the influence of the medication.
"Acetaminophen seems to make people feel less negative emotion when they consider risky activities – they just don't feel as scared," explained neuroscientist Baldwin Way from The Ohio State University when the findings were published.
"With nearly 25 percent of the population in the US taking acetaminophen each week, reduced risk perceptions and increased risk-taking could have important effects on society."
Related:
The findings add to a growing body of research suggesting that acetaminophen's effects on pain reduction also extend to various psychological processes, lowering people's receptivity to hurt feelings, experiencing reduced empathy, and even blunting cognitive functions.
In a similar way, the research suggests people's affective ability to perceive and evaluate risks may potentially be altered or impaired when they take acetaminophen.
While the effects might be slight – and should be considered hypothetical for now – they're worth noting, given acetaminophen is the most common drug ingredient in America, found in over 600 different kinds of over-the-counter and prescription medicines.
In a series of experiments involving over 500 university students as participants, Way and his team measured how a single 1,000 mg dose of acetaminophen (the recommended maximum adult single dosage) randomly assigned to participants affected their risk-taking behavior, compared against placebos randomly given to a control group.
In each of the experiments, participants had to pump up an un-inflated balloon on a computer screen, with each single pump earning imaginary money.
Their instructions were to earn as much imaginary money as possible by pumping the balloon as much as possible, but to make sure not to pop the balloon, in which case they would lose the money.
The results showed that the students who took acetaminophen engaged in significantly more risk-taking during the exercise, relative to the more cautious and conservative placebo group. On the whole, those on acetaminophen pumped (and burst) their balloons more than the controls.
"If you're risk-averse, you may pump a few times and then decide to cash out because you don't want the balloon to burst and lose your money," Way said.
"But for those who are on acetaminophen, as the balloon gets bigger, we believe they have less anxiety and less negative emotion about how big the balloon is getting and the possibility of it bursting."
In addition to the balloon simulation, participants also filled out surveys during two of the experiments, rating the level of risk they perceived in various hypothetical scenarios, such as betting a day's income on a sporting event, bungee jumping off a tall bridge, or driving a car without a seatbelt.
In one of the surveys, acetaminophen consumption did appear to reduce perceived risk compared to the control group, although in another similar survey, the same effect wasn't observed.
While an experiment like this doesn't necessarily reflect how acetaminophen might affect people in real-life scenarios, based on an average of results across the various tests, the team concluded that there is a significant relationship between taking acetaminophen and choosing more risk, even if the observed effect appears slight.
That said, the researchers acknowledged the drug's apparent effects on risk-taking behavior could also be interpreted via other kinds of psychological processes, such as reduced anxiety, perhaps.
"It may be that as the balloon increases in size, those on placebo feel increasing amounts of anxiety about a potential burst," the researchers explained.
"When the anxiety becomes too much, they end the trial. Acetaminophen may reduce this anxiety, thus leading to greater risk taking."
Exploring such psychological alternative explanations for this phenomenon – as well as investigating the biological mechanisms responsible for acetaminophen's effects on people's choices in situations like this – should be addressed in future research, the team said.
Despite the potential impact of acetaminophen's effect on people's risk perception, the drug nonetheless remains one of the most important and highly used medications in the world, considered an essential medicine by the World Health Organization, even if other questions linger.
"We really need more research on the effects of acetaminophen and other over-the-counter drugs on the choices and risks we take," Way said.
The findings were reported in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
An earlier version of this article was published in September 2020.
A subsequent commentary published in 2021 highlighted some criticisms of the original study and its interpretation in the media.
This article has been updated to better reflect the hypothetical nature of the study and its findings. For further information, see here.
Related News
Human Brains Rapidly Aged in The Pandemic, And It Wasn't Just The Virus
Eating Eggs Can Actually Lower Bad Cholesterol, New Study Says
Vape Fluid Warps The Skulls of Fetal Mice, Study Shows
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
Vaccines Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'
