01/17/23

The Eye of the Beholder with Psychedelic Therapy

Classical psychedelic drugs such as psilocybin, LSD, and mescaline were used and researched regularly in psychiatry before they were placed in Schedule I of the UN Convention in 1967 and in Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act in 1970. These actions legally defined these psychedelics as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Without a clinical focus and the widespread use of LSD within the 1960s counterculture movement, research rapidly dwindled. But there has been a resurgence of clinical research interest in the use of psychedelics for psychiatric disorders such as major depression, PTSD, anxiety and addiction.

In “Psychiatry & the psychedelic drugs,” Rucker, Iliff and Nutt described clinical trials using psychedelics pre and post prohibition. They also discussed the methodological challenges of preforming good quality clinical trials, and suggested an approach to the existing legal and regulatory barriers to licensing psychedelics as a treatment in mainstream psychiatry.

Experimentation and clinical trials undertaken prior to legal sanction suggest that they are not helpful for those with established psychotic disorders and should be avoided in those liable to develop them. However, those with so-called ‘psychoneurotic’ disorders sometimes benefited considerably from their tendency to ‘loosen’ otherwise fixed, maladaptive patterns of cognition and behaviour, particularly when given in a supportive, therapeutic setting. Pre-prohibition studies in this area were sub-optimal, although a recent systematic review in unipolar mood disorder and a meta-analysis in alcoholism have both suggested efficacy. The incidence of serious adverse events appears to be low.

The term ‘psychedelic’ was coined by Humphry Osmond in a letter he wrote to Aldous Huxley in 1956. Osmond combined two ancient Greek words, psyché, meaning soul or mind; and delein, meaning to reveal. So psychedelic means ‘soul revealing.’ The earliest direct evidence for the use of psychotropic plants dates to around 3700 BC in the northeastern region of Mexico. Carbon-dated buttons of peyote and red beans containing mescaline were found in caves used by humans for habitation. Arthur Heffter isolated mescaline from the peyote cactus in 1897.

Albert Hofmann first synthesized LSD in 1938. Coming at a time before there were effective medicinal therapies, the discovery of LSD was of interest to psychiatry. Acute LSD intoxication appeared to mimic some of the symptoms of acute psychosis and drew the research interest of Humphry Osmond. There also seemed to be an increased awareness of repressed memories and other elements of the subconscious, which suggested it could be helpful in psychotherapy. Trials in depressive, anxious, obsessive and addictive disorders in conjunction with psychologically supportive contexts reinforced that view. “By the end of the 1960s, hundreds of papers described the use of mescaline, psilocybin and (most frequently) LSD in a wide variety of clinical populations with non-psychotic mental health problems.”

The widespread use of LSD outside of the carefully orchestrated clinical and research settings and the growing reports of adverse effects when under the influence of LSD and other psychedelics led to prohibition. Medical use stopped quickly when doctors could no longer prescribe it. The following graph taken from “Psychiatry & the psychedelic drugs” depicts how the annual number of publications listed in PubMed rapidly decreased after 1968.

Recently, there have been several studies and randomized controlled trials using psychedelics with various nonpsychotic disorders. In “LSD: can psychedelics treat mental illness?,” written by Anya Borrissova for the Mental Elf blog, Borissova reviewed the findings of Fuentes et al, “Therapeutic Use of LSD in Psychiatry.” This was a systematic review of randomized-controlled clinical trials with LSD. The authors identified 11 studies that met their inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials of LSD that involved patients with a mental illness diagnosis. The qualities of the studies was scored with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment tool.

Seven of the 11 trials had recruited individuals diagnosed with what is now referred to as alcohol use disorder (AUD), 1 for AUD or neurotic diagnosis, 1 for heroin use disorder, 1 for anxiety associated with life-threatening diseases, and 1 with a neurotic diagnosis (depression, anxiety). The publication dates ranged from 1966 to 2014, which covered several changes in how mental disorders were labeled by the four different editions of the DSM, the 2^nd through the 5^th. The majority of the studies had a low risk of selection, attrition detection and reporting bias, as measured by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Assessment tool. However, five of the studies had a high risk of bias due to blinding.

With the studies of alcohol use disorder, a significant effect of LSD was observed in four studies. “However, this effect was related to quality of life and general health in some of the studies, with no clear improvements in alcohol abstinence.” While there was a substantial improvement in total abstinence for the LSD group, there were not significant differences in the global adjustment scale. With regard to the two studies of neurotic symptoms, one study showed statistically significant improvement in symptoms at 6-8 weeks in most measurements. But it failed to reach statistical significance in six months, although all groups showed significant differences in a large number of variables. Fuentes et al concluded that LSD was a potential therapeutic agent in psychiatry; with the strongest evidence for its use in treating alcoholism.

Borissova said the heterogeneity of the studies did not allow for a meta-analysis, which made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. The earlier studies had different methodologies than what is used now, which limits the application of the results to modern research. The use of the gold standard of the double-blind methodology with psychedelics is extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve, and five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. The psychiatric diagnostic categories were also different in studies done over such a wide range of time. How the studies defined their ‘control group’ varied, with those that failed to use an active placebo having questionable validity.

When discussing the implications of Fuentes et al, she said LSD generally appears to be safe and potentially effective. The lack of consistency between the studies may have limited their ability to find an LSD effect. “On the basis of this review, we cannot conclude that there is strong evidence of positive effects.” She did think change in scheduling the drugs to allow for easier research into LSD was justified. Tellingly, she ended with this caution: “Psychedelic research inspires a lot of excitement; the danger is that this turns into hype.”

There has been a growing interest in psychedelics as an agent for reaching peak experiences, for self-care or wellness, and as an instrument of therapeutic change. Michael Pollan explored this psychedelic ‘renaissance’ in his 2018 best-selling book, How to Change Your Mind. In a New York Times article, he said now when you leave the airport in Quito, Ecuador, there are people with signs that say: ‘ayahuasca ceremony’ instead of ‘taxi.’ “These people became shamans, like last week. People are getting hurt.” He had positive things to say about his experiences with psilocybin, but cautioned against legalization: “Psilocybin has a lot of potential as medicine, but we don’t know enough about it yet to legalize it.”

The promise of pre-prohibition LSD and psychedelic studies and their potential as therapeutic agents has to be replicated within a modern, controlled context. A 2016 paper by Rucker with different researchers than those cited above, “Psychedelics In the Treatment of Unipolar Mood Disorders,” elaborated on some of the difficulties inherent in designing trials with psychedelics. Blinding is largely impossible. Therapeutic doses of psychedelics produce subjective and objective changes in thinking, feeling and behavior that are usually obvious to both the participant in the study and the observer. Because of this, placebo control is problematic because the absence of the psychedelic effect is obvious. The ‘set’ (psychological state) and ‘setting’ (the interpersonal and physical environment) within which the drug is experienced are inextricably linked to the therapeutic effect.

It appears that a particularly careful and well-considered balance between the needs of the participants and the needs of the trial will be required in studies using psychedelics. . . Trial designers will need, similarly, to be detailed and explicit about the environmental and psychotherapeutic milieu in which a study is to be performed. Clinical trials using psychedelics will need to be sufficiently methodologically detailed at the point of publication to allow genuine replication. Scientific mechanism studies will need, ideally, to be pursued alongside clinical trials if this is pragmatic and ethical. Within this multi-pronged approach to evidence gathering, and a sufficient degree of definition, replicable results and common threads of insight into the nature and applicability of psychedelics to medicine in general, and to psychiatry in particular, should emerge with time.

In “Psychedelics In the Treatment of Unipolar Mood Disorders,” Rucker et al referred to and quoted Rick Strassman’s 1984 literature review, “Adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs.” Strassman noted that the description and reporting of adverse reactions to psychedelics was subject to the investigators’ attitudes towards psychedelics.

With the available data, it appears that the incidence of adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs is low when individuals, both normal volunteers and patients, are carefully screened and prepared, supervised and followed up, and given judicious doses of pharmaceutical quality drug. The few prospective studies noting adverse reactions have fairly consistently described characteristics predicting poor response to these drugs. The majority of studies of adverse reactions, retrospective in nature, have described a constellation of premorbid characteristics in individuals seeking treatment for these reactions where drugs of unknown purity were taken in unsupervised settings.

The authors repeated an assessment of the perceived psychotherapeutic mechanism identified by Betty Eisner and Sidney Cohen in their 1958 article, “Psychotherapy with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide.” Eisner and Cohen said their review of the existing literature in 1958 suggested that 1) LSD lessened defensiveness; 2) there was a heightened capacity to relive early experiences with accompanying release of feelings; 3) therapist-patient relationships were enhanced; 4) there was an increased appearance of unconscious material. Eisner and Cohen went on to describe their exploration of the therapeutic possibilities of LSD with 22 patients with diagnoses ranging from neurotic depression, anxiety, character disorder, borderline personality and schizophrenia. Improvement was noted in 16 of 22 cases, where improvement was judged as continued success in behavioral adaptation.

Rucker et al concluded that psychedelic therapy may represent a kind of “catalyzed psychotherapy,” where the psychedelic drug hastens the breakdown of entrenched, maladaptive ways of thinking and behavior in supportive environments. While the evidence from pre-prohibition literature is unsystematic and methodologically inadequate, it suggests further research is worth doing. But there are limitations to the future research of psychedelic psychotherapy that researchers need to be aware.

As discussed above, it is essentially impossible to develop a double-blind methodology with psychedelics because of the unique characteristics of the drugs. This opens investigations into psychedelic therapy to the potential bias of the researchers—one that cannot be eliminated. Strassman raised this warning in Rucker et al, where he was quoted as saying it is important to use caution when discussing the idea of adverse reactions to psychedelic drugs. Whether the researcher views the drug-induced state as a pathological one, or as trying to reach a “higher” level of consciousness, “The description and/or reporting of adverse reactions to psychedelics is, therefore, subject to some degree of investigators’ perspective on the use of these drugs.”

Given the potential bias of researchers into psychedelic therapy and the current inability of medical research to neutralize it, caution when interpreting the conclusions of any research is necessary. As Anya Borissova said, although psychedelic research inspires a lot of excitement; “the danger is that this turns into hype.” This danger cuts both ways, whether a particular researcher sees the drug-induced state as a pathological one, or as an attempt to reach a “higher” level of consciousness. At the very least, it seems researchers should declare any personal bias with regard to psychedelics within any written or published research into psychedelic therapy.

As an illustration, does knowing that Betty Eisner and Sidney Cohen both personally used LSD at least once (and probably more than just once) alter your assessment of their endorsement of psychedelic therapy? It was 1958 and their failure to do so is not an ethical misstep, but that awareness added to the inability to adequately blind their research should lead to some reservations with their conclusions endorsing psychedelics. Michael Pollan acknowledged the concern of potential bias in psychedelic research:

Western science and modern drug testing depend on the ability to isolate a single variable, but it isn’t clear the effects of a psychedelic drug can ever be isolated, whether from the context in which it is administered, the presence of the therapists involved, or the volunteer’s expectations. Any of these factors can muddy the waters of causality. And how is Western medicine to evaluate a psychiatric drug that appears to work not by means of any strictly pharmacological effect but by administering a certain kind of experience in the minds of the people who take it?

It seems impossible for psychedelic psychotherapy to be separated from its set or setting; and for research into its effectiveness to be reliably evaluated by a double blinded research methodology. The effectiveness (or not) of psychedelic therapy will necessarily be in the eye of the researcher and beholder.

For more on Betty Eisner, Sidney Cohen and early LSD research look, see: “Bill W. and His LSD Experiences.”

Originally posted on October 13, 2020.

05/17/22

Shamanistic Healing with Ayahuasca

Shaman in Ecuadorian Amazonia during a real ayahuasca ceremony, as seen in April 2015; © ammit | 123rf.com

Ayahuasca had (has?) a Hollywood connection. Celebrities like Jim Carrey, Lindsay Lohan, Chelsea Handler and others took the ayahuasca train for reasons as varied as personal enlightenment and telepathic experience. Celebrity interest in ayahuasca dates back to William Burroughs, who said the effects of yage (ayahuasca) were indescribable. “It is the most powerful drug I have ever experienced. That is, it produces the most complete derangement of the senses.”

The above quote is found in “The Yagé Aesthetic of William Burroughs,” the PhD Thesis of Joanna Harrop. She noted how The Yage Letters, published ten years after his own search for ayahuasca, did not include these comments. Perhaps Burroughs telepathically anticipated the actions that would later classify ayahuasca’s psychedelic ingredient, DMT (dimethyltryptamine), as a Schedule I controlled substance and intentionally left out those comments. Harrop noted that in his correspondence Burroughs seems to think of yage was a secret Cold War weapon. He said, “I know the Russians are working on it, and I think U.S. also. Russians are trying to produce ‘automatic obedience,’ have imported vast quantities of Yage for experiments on slave labor.”

While some follow Burroughs in his journey to the South American rainforests in search of their ayahuasca ritual, others simply fly a shaman in to L.A. from the Amazon River region to perform an ayahuasca ceremony. Because DMT is illegal in the U.S. these ceremonies are “invite-only.” You have to be vetted beforehand and show you’re serious about having the experience. In 2015, it was said: “On any given L.A. night, there are 50 to 100 circles being conducted.”

Scientific Studies of Ayahuasca for Healing

Yet there are also scientific studies being done to determine if ayahuasca can treat or heal depression, anxiety, PTSD and alcohol abuse. Scientists are also exploring how DMT alters the user’s waking brain-wave patterns, producing an experience that has been described as “dreaming while awake.” A study published in Scientific Reports by Timmermann et al found that immersion in the DMT state led to marked decreases in the user’s brain-wave patterns. Ars Technica said the subjects were fitted with EEG caps and electrodes to monitor their brain activity while being given an infusion of DMT. “The team found that the DMT caused a marked drop in alpha waves, a mark of wakefulness, along with a corresponding brief increase in theta brain wives, indicative of a dream state.”

These researchers also found there was more chaotic brain activity in subjects who were under the influence of DMT. They speculated this may explain why ayahuasca users report more vivid visual effects and a greater sense of immersion in the psychedelic experience. The lead author of the study, Christopher Timmermann, said: “From the altered brainwaves and participants’ reports, it’s clear these people are completely immersed in their experience—it’s like daydreaming only far more vivid and immersive, it’s like dreaming but with your eyes open.”

Co-author Robin Carhart-Harris said it was hard to capture and communicate what it is like for people experiencing DMT, comparing it to dreaming while awake or near-death experiences. “Our sense is that research with DMT may yield important insights into the relationship between brain activity and consciousness, and this small study is a first step along that road.”

A Brazilian study sought to assess the impact of ceremonial use of ayahuasca on alcohol and tobacco use disorder. Barbosa et al recruited 1,947 members of UDV—Uniã do Vegetal— from 10 states from all the major regions of Brazil. “Current use disorders for alcohol and tobacco were significantly lower in the UDV sample than the Brazilian norms.” This difference was even greater when UDV membership was more than 3 years.

We also found that ayahuasca use variables—ceremonial attendance during the previous 12 months and years of UDV membership—were much stronger predictors of reduced alcohol and tobacco use disorders and use during the previous 12 months than were the SES variables age, gender and level of education.

An another mostly Brazilian study by Palhano-Fontes et al of the therapeutic potential of ayahuasca on depression found evidence of rapid antidepressant effect after a single dose of ayahuasca when compared to placebo. The researchers noted that the severity of depression changed significantly, but differently for the ayahuasca and placebo groups. A review of the study in Mad in America by Hanna Emerson commented how the researchers noted a high placebo rate in their study—46% on day 1 and 26% on day 7. Their hypothesis was that the high placebo response was potentially associated with the ‘care effect,’ the comfortable and supportive environment experienced by participants in the study who were from low socioeconomic populations.

While all of the 29 participants reported feeling safe in the study, some participants reported it was not necessarily a pleasant experience. Some reported the experience was accompanied by a good bit of psychological stress. Most reported experiencing nausea and about 57% vomited. “Although vomiting is traditionally not considered a side effect of ayahuasca, but rather part of the purging process.” All participants were naïve to ayahuasca, with no previous experience with any other psychedelic substance.

The researchers touted their study as the first randomized placebo-controlled trial to investigate the antidepressant potential of a psychedelic with treatment-resistant depression. Because of the unique effects of psychedelics, a major challenge of the research was maintaining double blindness. They thought the additional measures taken in the study, including the use of an active placebo that increased anxiety and induced nausea, adequately preserved blindness in their study. But I wonder if that judgement was just wishful thinking on the part of the researchers. How do you truly double blind something with unique effects?

Uthaug et el concluded the drug was no better than a placebo. In order to understand the role of set and setting on psychological effects observed after participating in an ayahuasca ceremony, a naturalistic, placebo-controlled observational study was done. The researchers hypothesized that set and setting would impact both groups, but the pharmacological effects would only be seen in the ayahuasca group. Set referred to the intentions, mood state and expectations of the individual taking part in an ayahuasca ritual, and setting referred to the context in which the ceremony takes place.

A review of the study on Mad in America by Peter Simons observed that there was no difference between the ayahuasca group and the placebo group on outcome measures of anxiety, depression or stress. This suggested an important role for the set and setting of the ayahuasca ceremony itself. The researchers in Uthaug et al said:

Together, ratings of the psychedelic experience in the present study indicate that participants in both groups experienced altered states of consciousness during the ceremony and that the strength of the mean experience was low, with individual experiences ranging from absent to strong.

Participants in the study had extensive previous experiences with ayahuasca and may have developed personal sets of expectations and intentions. They speculated that repeated participation in ayahuasca ceremonies might stimulate learned associations with enhanced well-being, “which are memorized and experienced even when assigned to a placebo group.”

The present study primarily focused on the general impact of set and setting per se. In this context, it should also be noted that for many indigenous traditions, it is not necessary for the participants to consume ayahuasca. The belief held is that the shamans perform their work to aid those in the ceremony, even if they have not consumed the brew. [emphasis added]

The Shamanic Origins of Ayahuasca

Evidence of ayahuasca use can be dated back 1,000 years. In the 16^th century, missionaries from Spain first encountered indigenous people using ayahuasca in the western Amazonian basin. Their earliest reports described it as “the work of the devil.” Its transition from an indigenous South American healing ritual, to fashionable Hollywood “circles” and a potential treatment for various mental health conditions was facilitated by William Burroughs, his book The Yage Letters, a Chilean psychiatrist and the Esalen Institute.

When he was travelling through South America, Burroughs read a paper by an American ethnobiologist, Richard Evan Schultes, who is known for his studies of the use of plants, especially hallucinogenic plants, found in Mexico and the Amazon. Burroughs then sought ayahuasca in hopes that it could cure or relieve his opiate addiction. It did not cure his addiction to opiates, but it did lead to the publication of The Yage Letters.

A Chilean psychiatrist and self-proclaimed shaman named Claudio Naranjo convinced Schultes to permit him to travel up the Amazon with him in order to study ayahuasca with indigenous tribes. Naranjo brought back samples and eventually published the first scientific description of the effects of ayahuasca in 1967. In the U.S., he became a close friend of Carlos Castaneda (author of The Teachings of Don Juan), and worked with Fritz Perls, the originator of Gestalt therapy, as part of the early Esalen Institute community. He returned to Chile and began research into psychopharmacology. Afterwards he wrote The Healing Journey, originally published in 1973. Naranjo dedicated this book was to Franz Hoffman, “who sponsored my career as research psychiatrist in psychopharmacology and shamanism.”

Stanislav Grof, a well-known name in the psychedelic community, wrote the Foreword to The Healing Journey. In 1970 he presciently said that with the increasing knowledge of the nature and emotional dynamics of psychosomatic disorders, it became obvious there would be no overnight cure in the form of a new miraculous antidepressant agent. But he thought two independent streams seemed to have promise—the use of chemical agents with psychotherapy and the development of “new experimental psychotherapeutic techniques.”

Claudio Naranjo is an outstanding representative of both of these streams, and his synthesis of drug-assisted psychotherapy and the new experimental techniques seems to offer an interesting approach to the problem of brief therapy. . . [His] experience with psychoactive substances is even more impressive than his work with new psychotherapeutic techniques. Over the years, he has experiments with more than thirty compounds—mostly psychedelics and amphetamine derivatives—as adjuncts to psychotherapy. He made a special canoe journey up the Amazon River to connect with South American Indians and study their use of ayahuasca or yage.

Naranjo is the embodiment of the shaman-psychiatrist, combining psychedelics with psychotherapy to promote his sense of healing. His last talk, given six weeks before his death in 2019 was titled “The relevance of ayahuasca in the problems of the world.” After an extended discussion of civilized culture, original sin, and the patriarchal order, he turned to ayahuasca. He then described some of his experiments in Chile.

There was group of people who were naïve to the culture of indigenous peoples, who didn’t know what they were taking. They would start seeing birds and snakes and other “typical indigenous images of ayahuasca, which are depicted in the ceramics of the South American peoples.” He convinced himself this was something like what Carl Jung called the archetypical world. He thought the most striking phenomenon in ayahuasca was not the appearance of the animal aspect, the personification of the primitive. “What’s striking about ayahuasca is a change of attitude toward the animal.”

We have transformed some animals into terrible animals, but clearly the terrible is a part within ourselves. But there is the potential of recognizing another type of animality that is sometimes called a power animal or a sacred animal. I don’t think that this is a strange phenomenon of ayahuasca, because one of the pillars of psychotherapy was the Freudian ambition of decriminalized instincts. It’s not usually achieved. Other things are much more easily achieved. The depth of the original sin leaves a really deep imprint in us. So we feel bad because we carry a life of instincts. So it’s quite rare to have this phenomenon, which we sometimes easily see in ayahuasca. One of my first voluntary subjects, a woman, came across a Siberian tiger, a white tiger, and the tiger then became her guide. She’s now older, she’s my age, and she still feels that the tiger is her spiritual guide.

We are at a time when mental health professionals are being challenged to seriously investigate the supposed scientific potential of various psychedelics like ayahuasca, MDMA and psilocybin for conjoint use with psychotherapy. We should also become aware of the long association of psychedelics with shamanistic healing rituals and the clearly unscientific explanations of their power. Is the discussion of dramatic healings with ayahuasca and other psychedelics just a description of a shamanistic healing ritual couched in scientific rhetoric? While further study is needed, it seems to me that the placebo effect of the ceremony, not the psychedelic compound itself, is the significant factor in reported therapeutic changes with ayahuasca.

For more information on Claudio Naranjo, see “Is the Enneagram Spiritually Neutral? Part 2 and Part 3.

04/12/22

The Psychedelic Pendulum and Psychiatry, Part 2

On October 12, 1955 psychiatrist Sidney Cohen took LSD for the first time. Expecting to feel catatonic or paranoid because LSD was then thought to produce a temporary psychosis, he instead felt an elevated peacefulness, as if the problems and worries of everyday life had vanished. “I seemed to have finally arrived at the contemplation of eternal truth.” He immediately began his own LSD experiments, even exploring whether it could be helpful in facilitating psychotherapy, curing alcoholism and enhancing creativity. But on July of 1962 in The Journal of The American Medical Association, he warned of the dangers of suicide, prolonged psychotic reactions, and said: “Misuse of the drug alone or in combination with other agents has been encountered.”

The history of psychedelics seems have followed this pendulum swing from hope and promise, to disappointment and warnings, and then back again to hope and promise. In Part 1 of this article, we looked at the current promise of psychedelic therapy and treatment and mentioned its use to supposedly enhance creativity. Here we’ll take a closer look at the present-day concerns and reservations with the proposed use of psychedelics as therapeutic tools. Tellingly, they haven’t change much since Cohen co-authored “Complications Associated with Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD-25).”

In “Psychedelics—The New Psychiatric Craze,” Joanna Moncrieff acknowledged the “increasingly fashionable” interest in psychedelics as a medical treatment, but wondered if they weren’t just “a powerful form of snake oil.” She noted the ever-lengthening list of problems they were recommended to treat, which included PTSD, depression, anxiety, addiction, chronic pain and distress associated with having a terminal illness. The rationale behind the trend was said to be confusing and contradictory.

On the one hand, psychedelics are promoted as assisting the process of psychotherapy through the insights that the ‘trip’ or drug-induced experience can generate – on the other they are claimed to represent a targeted medical treatment for various disorders, through correcting underlying brain deficiencies.

Increasingly, the use of these drugs is portrayed as if they work by targeting underlying dysfunctional brain processes (i.e., resetting brain processes by acting on 5-HT2A receptors). Moncrieff said claims by David Nutt, a psychopharmacologist and psychedelic researcher that psychedelics “turn off parts of the brain that relate to depression” and reset the brain’s thinking processes by their actions on the 5-HT2A receptors were “pure speculation.” She made the same judgment on a John Hopkins website that said researchers hoped to “create precision medicine treatments tailored to the specific needs of individual patients.” The charity, Mind Medicine Australia’s claim that psychedelic treatments were curative and only required 2-3 dosed sessions, that they were “antibiotics for the mind”, Moncrieff thought was a sales pitch for an expensive therapy.

In reality, psychedelics do not produce the miracle cures people are led to expect, as experience with ketamine confirms. Some people may feel a little better after a treatment, and then the effect wears off and they come for another one and another one, and get established on long-term treatment just as people do on antidepressants.

Official research also over-plays the drug’s benefits. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression,” found no significant difference between groups in their primary outcome. The study’s discussion then pointed out that secondary outcomes had small differences, but did not consider the placebo effect of participants having a drug-induced experience. The participants were also not typical of those with depression, consisting of mainly well-educated men, almost a third of whom had tried psychedelics before. The study’s researchers said:

The patients in the trial were not from diverse ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds. Strategies to improve recruitment of more diverse study populations are needed in studies of psilocybin for depression. Also, average symptom severity scores at baseline were in the range for moderate depression, thus limiting extrapolations to patients with severe depressive symptoms or treatment-resistant depression.

The current craze for psychedelics means adverse effects are being minimized, according to Moncrieff. Whether or not people find the effects of psychedelics enlightening or not depends on how the drug-induced experience is interpreted. This highlights the importance of staff as support people while clients are under the influence. Yet she worried that when, and if, psychedelics obtain a medical license, psychotherapy would be dropped or minimized. “The tendency of all psychedelic treatment will be towards the provisions of the drug in the cheapest possible way, which means the minimum of supervision and therapy.”

In “When Drugs of Abuse Become Psychiatric Medications,” Sara and Jack Gorman noted that some commentators have been suggesting we’re on the cusp of a new era in psychopharmacology with the potential of ketamine, MDMA and psilocybin as psychiatric treatments for depression, PTSD and other disorders. They noted how we have information about the biological mechanisms of action for all three of them. Ketamine works mainly through interaction with the brain’s glutamate neurotransmission system. MDMD and psilocybin enhance the brain’s serotonin receptors—the same system affected by SSRI antidepressants.

Unfortunately, however, we still have no firm idea if derangements in any of these neurotransmitter systems are actually the cause of any mood or anxiety disorder. There are many theories linking abnormal glutamate neurotransmission to depression, for example, and some solid data from animal studies suggesting such a link, but no definitive proof that any abnormality in glutamate neurotransmission is part of depression yet exists. We cannot say that any of these drugs work by remediating a known abnormality in the brains of people with psychiatric illnesses any more than we can say that about any of the traditional psychiatric medications.

One final issue is that regardless of the fact that currently approved medications for depression and PTSD are only partially effective for many patients, they are not usually abused or addictive. Yet ketamine, psilocybin and MDMA have long histories as recreational street drugs that can be addictive for some people. In the clinical trials done to date adverse side effects have been minimal, and with the doses and manner in which they are given, addiction is unlikely. Moreover, there are widely used, FDA-approved, psychiatric drugs with known histories of misuse—benzodiazepines and ADHD medications.

Then the Gormans asked a telling question: Is psychiatry following solid science, or going in the direction of approving the use of mind-altering street drugs as medications—and I’d add—because they have no other potential medications on the horizon?

In the journal, JAMA Psychiatry, Joshua Phelps and two others expressed concerns with the growth of industry-sponsored drug development and the assessment of psychedelic drug effectiveness. They noted the market for psychedelic substances was projected to grow from $2 billion in 2020 to $10.75 billion by 2027, “a growth rate that may even outpace the legal US cannabis market.” They said the interest in psychedelic medicine seems to hope that psychedelics will be the next blockbuster class of medicines and has led to efforts to decriminalize psychedelics at the local level, as with Oregon (see Part 1) and other locations. Their concern is that these regulatory changes will adversely affect the quality and rigor of biomedical research with psychedelics.

Although popular excitement, policy momentum, and financial investment in psychedelics continue to increase, it is imperative that research maintains scientific rigor and dispassion to outcomes in the pursuit of improved therapeutics and new insights into the mind, brain, and consciousness that this class of molecules may well afford in the coming years. The presence of large-scale, newly established public companies as an unprecedented category of stakeholder may help to further understanding of these molecules and their possible clinical applications, but these firms also have a unique set of self-interests that must be understood and considered. Research enabled by these firms must still meet the same rigorous standards that are expected elsewhere, even if breakthrough status is warranted.

Then there is another concern described by Will Hall on “Ending the Silence Around Psychedelic Therapy Abuse.” He made his decision to write about therapy abuse when he read Michael Pollan’s best-selling book on psychedelics, How to Change Your Mind. Hill thought Pollan was overly enthusiastic and largely uncritical. “All the new hype about miracle psychiatric treatments and the next wave of cures for mental disorders leaves out the risk of therapy abuse.”

He said from his perspective, as far as drugs go, psychedelics were relatively safe—safer than benzodiazepines or SSRIs. He even acknowledged that reported healings from emotional pain with psychedelics did happen. By raising an alarm about therapy abuse he said he wasn’t exaggerating the dangers of psychedelics, rather: “I’m calling for more honesty about the implications of putting psychedelics in the hands of therapists.”

He noted the inherently imbalanced power relationship of therapist and client, where there is already the potential danger of authority being misused. The therapist has too much influence over a client, and the consequences for clients are too severe to see each side as equal, according to Hall. “And so we protect clients from therapists in the same way we protect children from adults, especially from the most exploitive and extreme violation of therapist trust, sex with clients.” The risks are magnified when you add psychedelics.

Drugs affect judgment, drugs can enhance idealization, drugs can promote risk taking, drugs can lower defenses, drugs can amplify suggestibility, drugs can lead to dissociation… all drugs. Imagine if you heard therapists were giving their clients alcohol to get them talkative, lines of cocaine to get them confident, or cannabis to get them relaxed? You would easily recognize that even if some clients do benefit, the client is also put into a heightened and more easily exploited state. Despite their many unique and often positive qualities, this is still true of psychedelics. And the influence is magnified when the therapist is supplier of and expert about the drug, when the drug has a taboo cultural aura of esoteric healing powers, the media are hyping miracle cures, and scientific experts are waving their hands and calling it “medical treatment.” Add that psychedelic therapists are typically also themselves users of and true believers in these substances. The dangers are obvious.

Psychedelics present some of the same risks as any drugs. Hall said we need to name those risks, and be especially vigilant about them. Otherwise, even though some people will be helped, others will be harmed. “And as the history of psychedelic therapy abuse shows, they already have.” Hall then gave specific historical examples and details from past abuse as well as his own personal experiences.

He wasn’t alone in pointing to this safety concern with psychedelic therapy. In her article on Oregon’s experiment with legalizing psychedelics for STAT, Olivia Goldhill noted that sexual abuse has historically been a problem with psychedelic therapy. “All the usual power imbalances of patients and therapists are exacerbated in a setting where drugs can create feelings of sexual arousal.”

Hall also pointed out that with psychedelics or any other drug, “it’s called getting high for a reason—we lose our feet on the ground.” Gaining a new perspective can be illuminating, but avoidance could come instead of insight. Psychedelics also increase suggestibility, a tendency to accept the beliefs of others illustrated in hypnotic trance states and situations where there is social pressure for conformity. Psychedelics can make some people more dependent on outside influence and more reluctant to consider they may have misjudged their safety when using the drugs.

There is more Will Hall has to say about the potential for therapy abuse with psychedelics, but what we’ve reviewed lays out the concerns. I don’t agree entirely with what seems to me to be a “laissez faire” approach to people who want to use psychedelics for healing or illumination. I’d say there is as much of concern with their use as with benzodiazepines or SSRIs. And given the pendulum swing evident in the history of psychedelics as therapeutic agents, there is a swing back to disappointments and concerns ahead. As Hall astutely said,

All medical treatment outcomes are driven in part by expectation and placebo: eventually the hype around new psychiatric products wears off, and then we are on to the next marketing wave—with iatrogenic harm to patients left in the wake.

STAT said that Washington, New York, Colorado and California are all considering some form of legalizing psychedelics. Other states are enacting decriminalization measures. If Oregon-style legislation spreads to other states, the potential market for legalization will get bigger. Field Trip, a company with a series of clinics used for ketamine therapy plans to set up clinics in Oregon. “Oregon is just the first step. But there’s a big wave coming almost certainly.”

04/5/22

The Psychedelic Pendulum and Psychiatry, Part 1

© rolffimages | 123rf.com. Opened door to another dimension.

In November of 2020, Oregon became the first state to legalize the use of psilocybin in therapeutic settings. Measure 109 created a two-year time period during which regulatory details were to be worked out by the Oregon Psilocybin Advisory Board (OPAB). These details would include issues like what qualifications would be required of therapists overseeing those who chose to use psilocybin. Significantly, psilocybin treatment will not be limited to individuals struggling with mental health issues. Anyone 21 or older who passes a screening will be able to access these psychedelic services for “personal development.”

The first draft of rules recommended by the OPAB were made public in February of 2022. Manufacturers will only be permitted to cultivate one of about 200 different types of mushrooms containing psilocybin, Psilocybin cubensis. Some people were concerned with this recommendation, believing the board was also limiting potential benefits. “It is believed that different species promote different types of experiences.”

Psilocybe cubensis was chosen because it’s one of the most popular mushrooms consumed and one of the most studied. Advisory board members also thought that it would be best to start simple, with one mushroom. Other species might be introduced later.

The OPAB also recommended a ban on growing Psilocybe cubensis in wood chips. This is to prevent a rare condition known as wood lover’s paralysis that produces muscle weakness a few hours after hallucinogenic mushrooms grown in wood chips are consumed. Scientists don’t know why this condition occurs. “But it isn’t believed to happen with Psilocybe cubensis.”

The rules also prohibit the chemical synthesis of psilocybin. Measure 109 also requires the state to only license people to set up grow operations who have been Oregon residents for at least two years. Well, at least until 2025. These recommendations are attempting to allow small farmers to set up grow operations and limit the ability of large pharmaceutical companies to move in and potentially dominate the market.

There are other reasons for banning synthesized psilocybin. The synthesis requires using toxic chemicals that have to be extracted before sale so there’s no residue in the final product. Mason Marks, a member of the OPAB, said synthesizing psilocybin is a huge undertaking. “There was some sentiment that that might be maybe unrealistic or overly burdensome, at least initially to expect people to have that level of expertise or equipment in order to do that.”

Manufacturers will have to use clean, food-grade equipment in an area that can be locked. They won’t be permitted to make psilocybin products that may appeal to minors, like in the shape of cartoon characters. Psilocybin is only permitted to be used orally—not with an inhaler, a suppository or an injection. Students will have the opportunity to observe “non-ordinary states of consciousness.”

Facilitators (not therapists?) will have to take at least 120 hours of instruction, covering everything from the history of psilocybin use to safety concerns. They will have to have sufficient experience to teach classes for individuals interested in trying psilocybin. But what about ethical expectations and boundaries with clients under the influence?

Therapeutic facilitators of individuals doing psychedelic therapy from the time of its origins in the 1950s recommended two therapists, one male and one female. This was to minimize the possibility of sexual exploitation of the clients when they are under the influence of psychedelics. More about this in part 2 of the article.

These draft rules need to be discussed and adopted by the Oregon Health Authority. Other rules are still pending, such as how research with psilocybin should be conducted, and the conditions (i.e., schizophrenia) that would prohibit people from trying psilocybin treatment. There are more complicated issues that need to be decided as well. There’s a desire to permit microdosing psilocybin (taking one-tenth or one-twentieth of a normal dose), over a few days. This practice is thought to boost creativity and focus, as well as alleviate depression.

Oregon’s psilocybin system is scheduled to begin in 2023. The Oregon Health Authority will begin taking applications for licenses to manufacture, transport, deliver, sell and purchase psilocybin products on January 2, 2023.

Psychology Today has a page that introduces the reader to “Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy,” giving information on the most common psychedelic substances, their general effects and properties, as well as potential harms and proposed therapeutic uses. It also has a section on “Understanding Microdosing.” The most common psychedelic substances listed on the page were: psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, mescaline and MDMA. All but MDMA listed psychosis as a potential harm. Therapeutic uses being investigated include: PTSD, addiction to alcohol, tobacco and cocaine; anxiety associated with terminal illness; depression and general anxiety.

Dependence or substance misuse is not listed as a potential harm for any of the psychedelics, which do have a low risk for addiction. But the repeated therapeutic use of psychedelics increases the ritualized, long-term use of these drugs, and raises the possibility of misuse or dependence problems developing in users over time.

Information on microdosing said there was some evidence of positive effects performance and creativity, but it was mostly anecdotal. One 2018 study published in the journal Psychopharmacology, “Exploring the effect of microdosing psychedelics on creativity,” found support for its cognitive enhancing properties, but fluid intelligence was unaffected. The researchers concluded that while large doses of psychedelics can introduce several undesirable side effects, microdoses might be an alternative that could eliminate the risks of these side effects, while maintaining the benefits on emotion and thinking.

A 2016 study by Roland Griffiths et al, also published in the journal Psychopharmacology, found that when a high dose of psilocybin was administered to patients with a life-threatening cancer diagnosis under supportive conditions, there were “substantial and enduring” decreases in depressed mood and anxiety. It also resulted in increases in measures of quality of life, life meaning, the acceptance of death, and optimism. The effects were sustained for six months.

There has been a veritable flood of articles and research on the supposed benefits of psychedelics, particularly psilocybin and MDMA, over the last several years besides these two Psychopharmacology studies. In 2019, the FDA designated psilocybin therapy as a breakthrough therapy for Usona Institute, the second pharmaceutical company to gain such an approval in that year. The first company, Compass Pathways, is looking at how psilocybin may help with treatment-resistant depression, that is patients who have not improved after trying two different antidepressants. The significance of the second FDA breakthrough approval is related to how it expands the potential market from the relatively small population of individuals struggling with treatment resistant depression to the estimated 17 million with major depressive disorder, according to a statement by Usona:

This is a significant milestone for the over 17 million people in the US who suffer from MDD. Although there are several existing MDD treatments, Breakthrough Therapy Designation recognizes that psilocybin may offer a clinically significant improvement over these therapies. Psilocybin potentially offers a novel paradigm in which a short-acting compound imparts profound alterations in consciousness and could enable long-term remission of depressive symptoms.

Dr. Samoon Ahmad provided a helpful description of how psilocybin affects the brain in a Psychology Today article, “Understanding the Buzz About Magic Mushrooms.” He said psilocin, not psilocybin, seems to be the substance responsible for the psychoactive effects of “magic mushrooms.” Psilocybin and other psychedelics like LSD and mescaline activate the 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors in the prefrontal cortex, which in turn has downstream effects on serotonin and dopamine. “The increase in dopamine is believed to be part of the reason for some of the psilocybin’s effects on mood, such as euphoria, and the commonly reported phenomenon of depersonalization.”

He said the probability of serious adverse events and abuse of psilocybin was low when compared to other classes of abused drugs. The association of the lifetime use of psychedelics and an increased likelihood of mental illness or suicidality “simply does not exist,” according to Ahmad. By associating “lifetime use of psychedelics” and an “increased likelihood of mental illness or suicidality,” Ahmad’s sidesteps how psychedelics can be destabilizing for some individuals who have a past history of psychotic disorders like schizophrenia. See Part 2 for more information on concerns with psychedelic psychotherapy.

Psilocybin can also produce side effects like hypertension, nausea, vomiting, anxiety, confusion and more. Ahmad also pointed out the importance of “set and setting,” the individual’s mindset and their environment.

A positive experience may inspire life-changing epiphanies and grant individuals a greater perspective on life. A negative experience may result in disturbing thoughts or hallucinations, which may lead to anxiety, disorientation, delirium, and, in extreme circumstances, temporary psychosis. Researchers have found that they can significantly diminish the likelihood of negative experiences by providing patients with more preparation and interpersonal support during the period of drug action.

There is still a risk if the interpersonal support is inadequate or inappropriate—not respecting clear, therapeutic boundaries between the support person and the client. And the preparation may not get the person ready for the actual psychedelic experience. Careful attention to the “set and setting,” the inner and outer environments of the drug event, is crucial for a positive experience.

Ahmad said research has shown that psychedelics hold a great deal of promise, “as long as they are administered in a controlled and clinical environment or under the guidance of individuals who are experienced in the use of psychedelics.” But stigma surrounds the use and research into these drugs. His hope is that there will be a loosening of restrictions and regulations in the U.S. as there is more research published, “and the case for the use of psychedelics becomes stronger.”

Dr. Ahmad and researchers like Roland Griffiths (see this Google scholar link for “Roland Griffths psilocybin”) are representative of those who see the potential for psychedelic therapy, particularly with psilocybin. Rick Doblin and his organization MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) are attempting to bring MDMA to market as a treatment for PTSD see this Google scholar link for “Rick Doblin MDMA”). British researchers including Robin Carhart-Harris and David Nutt want to treat depression with psilocybin. Michael Pollan, author of a best-selling book on psychedelics, How to Change Your Mind, thought there has been a sea change in attitudes towards psychedelics. In “The Psychedelic Revolution Is Coming,” he said, “Given the mental health crisis in this country, there’s great curiosity and hope about psychedelics and a recognition that we need new therapeutic tools.”

But what are the risks in turning to psychedelics like psilocybin and MDMA as the next great hope in psychiatric drug treatment? As Andrew Jacobs noted in his NYT article, “The Psychedelic Revolution Is Coming,”

The question for many is how far — and how fast — the pendulum should swing. Even researchers who champion psychedelic-assisted therapy say the drive to commercialize the drugs, combined with a growing movement to liberalize existing prohibitions, could prove risky, especially for those with severe psychiatric disorders, and derail the field’s slow, methodical return to mainstream acceptance.

We’ll look at some of the concerns others see with the growing move towards psychedelics as the newest fad in the pursuit of therapeutic tools in Part 2 of this article. For more information on psychedelics as therapy, see the following articles on this website: “Psychedelics Are Not a Magic Bullet,” “The Long, Strange Trip of Psychedelic Psychiatry,” “Give MDMA a Chance?,” and “Psychedelic Renaissance?”

08/3/21

Psychedelics Are Not a Magic Bullet

The Society for Cultural Anthropology published a series of articles, “The Psychedelic Revival,” which noted that psychedelics were making a comeback in modern science, public discourse, and cultural significance. Popular books and mainstream media have highlighted seemingly promising research with drugs such as MDMA, psilocybin and ayahuasca. The medicalization of psychedelics has stimulated the expansion of institutional research and private investment as these new treatments move towards the market. The New York Times published, “How MDMA and Psilocybin Became Hot Investments.” There is even a webpage for Psychedelic Investors, where you can “find financial backing for your psychedelic-driven idea.”

The NYT noted how the nation’s top universities are setting up psychedelic research centers. Investors are giving millions of dollars to an ever-increasing group of start-ups with psychedelic-driven ideas. Michael Pollan, the author of the best selling How to Change your Mind, said there has been a sea change in receptiveness about what had been considered fringe science. “Given the mental health crisis in this country, there’s great curiosity and hope about psychedelics and a recognition that we need new therapeutic tools.”

The two leading psychedelic candidates being developed as therapeutic tools are MDMA and psilocybin. The journal Nature Medicine published the results of the ongoing quest of Rick Doblin and his organization MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) to bring MDMA to market as an FDA treatment for PTSD. The New England Medical Journal just published the findings of a British group of researchers, most notably Robin Carhart-Harris and David Nutt, and their desire to treat depression with psilocybin. Scientists, psychotherapists and entrepreneurs in the rapidly growing field of psychedelic medicine believe it is only a matter of time before the FDA gives approval for these drugs to be used therapeutically.

The question for many is how far — and how fast — the pendulum should swing. Even researchers who champion psychedelic-assisted therapy say the drive to commercialize the drugs, combined with a growing movement to liberalize existing prohibitions, could prove risky, especially for those with severe psychiatric disorders, and derail the field’s slow, methodical return to mainstream acceptance.

Psychedelic research is now swimming in money. Rick Doblin can remember when research money was scarce. But MAPS has raised $44 million over the past two years. “I spend a lot of my time saying no to investors,” said Doblin. John Hopkins, The University of California Berkley, and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York have or soon will have psychedelic research programs funded by private donors.

There are over a dozen psychedelic start-ups and a handful of companies that have gone public. Compass Pathways is a Nasdaq-listed health care company that has raised $240 million and is conducting 22 clinical trials across 10 countries of psilocybin therapy for treatment-resistant depression. Field Trip Health is a two-year old Canadian company trading on the Canadian stock Exchange that raised $150 million to finance dozens of ketamine clinics in North American cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston. Oregon became the first state to legalize the therapeutic use of psilocybin last year. So far, the Justice Department has taken a hand-off approach to enforcing the fact that psychedelics are still illegal under federal law.

Field Trip got its start opening cannabis clinics across Canada. This summer the company plans to test psilocybin therapy in Amsterdam, where psilocybin mushrooms are legal. They are also developing a new psychedelic with the same therapeutic effects of psilocybin, but it works in half the time—about two or three hours. This would reduce the staffing costs of supervised sessions. More importantly, it would give the company propriety control of the new drug. Other biotech companies are doing the same.

Ronan Levy, Field Trip’s executive chairman said, “We are riding the forefront of what I think is going to be a significant cultural and business wave.” This corporate interest is both thrilling and troubling. Potential missteps could undo the progress of recent years. Veteran psychedelic scientists like Charles Grob of UCLA worry that commercialization and the rush toward the recreational use of psychedelics will trigger a public backlash again, “especially if increased availability of the drugs leads to a wave of troubling psychotic reactions.”

Rigorous protocols and a system to train and credential psychedelic medicine professional is needed, according to Grob. They have to be meticulously attentive to safety conditions. If these conditions are not maintained, there is a risk that some people will become psychologically unstable. “And if the primary motivator is extracting profit, I feel the field is more vulnerable to mishaps.” Rick Doblin shares some of those concerns. “I realize we could screw things up at the last minute so I’m not planning to celebrate any time soon.”

The Pollan Effect

Since the publication of How to Change Your Mind the expectations of participants in the research trials of what’s going to occur have skyrocketed. In “The Pollan Effect,” a psychedelic trial researcher said it was a big problem, but there’s not much they can do about it. The promising results are published and describe an 80 percent success rate and mystical experiences. Then a participant has a session where they don’t feel anything and are hugely disappointed; and sometimes feel like failures. “You want people coming into this with some openness, and typically once you have all these preconceived ideas, they think they know what they want. That doesn’t always work out well.”

For my part I definitely think this issue is a big problem, and my guess is that it will only be getting worse in the near-term. I actually just drew up a slide for a talk at APA [American Psychological Association] next month with the title in bold, PSYCHEDELICS ARE NOT A MAGIC BULLET. I’ll also be talking about . . . this mythology that with psychedelics they can take this brief trip to a faraway place (like Disneyland) and come back magically transformed/cured, whereas the reality is much more complex.

But these warnings don’t seem to discourage the so-called “psychonauts” (someone who explores altered states of consciousness, particularly through hallucinatory drugs). On the maps.org home page is the statement: “Together, we can cross the finish line and make MDMA a medicine.” It adds that if successful, the treatment could transform the lives of millions of people living with complex trauma. Rick Doblin is quoted as saying, “Psychedelics, when used wisely, have the potential to heal us, help inspire us, and perhaps even save us.” And this appears to be the goal behind what MAPS is presenting as MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD—MDMA-assisted therapy for everyone.

On May 11, 2021, MAPS won an appeal to do a phase 1 trial of MDMA-assisted therapy with healthy volunteer therapists to measure the “development of self-compassion, professional quality of life, and professional burnout among clinicians.” The FDA had placed a clinical hold on the proposed study in 2019 due to concerns regarding the scientific merit of the study, the risk-to-benefit ratio for healthy participants, and the credentials of the clinical investigators. “Personal experience is widely considered to be an important element in preparation and training to deliver psychedelic-assisted therapies.” If the appeal had not been granted, the Lead Facilitator in each two-person facilitator team would be required to hold an M.D., Ph.D. or equivalent degree and be on-site instead of on-call during treatment sessions.

The hoped-for process would seem to be something like this once there is FDA approval for MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD. Once allowed by the FDA, MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD would be linked with FDA approval of MDMA-assisted therapy for healthy volunteer therapists; and then followed by FDA approval of MDMA-assisted therapy for any interested, healthy party. Rick Doblin implied as much when he said:

For three decades, we have sought to educate the FDA in our novel approach rather than simply accept FDA requirements that are unjustified by the evidence. The dedicated work and incisive strategy of our Clinical Development team continues to improve the regulatory landscape for all future patients of psychedelic-assisted medicines.

Since 2010, MAPS has organized a series of Psychedelic Science conferences. In 2013, it was a three-day conference with over 1,900 international attendees. The 2017 conference was a six-day global gathering with three days of conference programming. In 2019, the conference became a Psychedelic Science Summit. The 2023 Psychedelic Science Conference expects an estimated 10,000 attendees, “At the world’s largest psychonaut gathering.”

In 2014, Scientific American republished a brief article on the resurgence of in psychedelics as therapeutic agents, which said: “Psychedelic drugs are poised to be the next major breakthrough in mental health care.” The hype is accelerating and the enthusiasm is growing for psychedelic-assisted therapies. But let’s wait and see what the open science and total transparency of MAPS shows us with MDMA. Remember psychedelics are not a magic bullet, whether they are used to heal or inspire us. They certainly won’t save us and may not be as efficacious as claimed.

In “Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression,” researchers sought to compare psilocybin-assisted therapy with escitalopram assisted therapy in a randomized, blinded study. The Mental Elf website reviewed and commented on the study. There were no statistically different differences in the primary outcome measure between the psilocybin and escitalopram groups at six weeks, but no conclusions could be drawn from the data. “In both trial groups, the scores on the depression scales at week 6 were numerically lower than the baseline scores, but the absence of a placebo group in the trial limits conclusions about the effect of either agent alone.”

Writing for The Mental Elf, James Rucker and Sameer Jauhar commented how the lack of a placebo control condition made it difficult to differentiate between the two drug treatments and the psychological therapy that went along with these. They noted the six week follow up may not have been long enough to effectively evaluate the escitalopram condition. “Positive and negative expectancy effects are likely to have affected the results in this trial and are liable to bias results in favour of psilocybin.” Given that participants likely received extensive psychological support, “The results of this trial may reflect more the therapeutic efficacy of attentive psychological therapy than to psilocybin or escitalopram.” (emphasis in the original)

07/13/21

The Long, Strange Trip of Psychedelic Psychiatry

There seems to be a full court press of articles on the renaissance of clinical research into psychedelic substances. NPR had a segment on their program Short Wave. Salon published an article on how researchers are studying psychedelics all wrong. The New York Times published an article describing a new study that showed where MDMA-assisted therapy resulted in 67% of the participants no longer qualified for a diagnosis of PTSD. You can even find receptive discussions of psychedelics by H. Steven Moffic and Tiago Merques on Psychiatric Times and an article on a presentation of this research at the 2021 APA Annual Meeting. Welcome to psychedelic psychiatry.

The takeaway from the NPR broadcast, “The Resurgence of Psychedelic Psychiatry” was that we are “at the beginning of a new era.” Dr. Moffic presented a breezy history of research with psychedelics in “The Trip Resumes for Psychedelics, Psychiatry, and Society” and said the topic required more careful study. Merques noted the trial was testing the drug plus assisted psychotherapy. He acknowledged this was very different from normal FDA studies.

The NYT article, “Looking to the Future of MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy,” highlighted the work of Rick Doblin and MAPS, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, in bringing MDMA-assisted therapy through the FDA approval process. Doblin was the senior author of “MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD,” recently published in the prestigious journal, Nature Medicine. The presentation at the 2021 APA Annual Meeting, “Looking to the Future of MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy,” reviewed the results described in the Rick Doblin article and quoted one of the presenters as saying, “The future is here.”

The MAPS efforts with MDMA-assisted therapy to treat PTSD is getting the most press and interest at this time. Jennifer Mitchell, who was the lead author of “MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD,” said in the NYT article, “This is a wonderful, fruitful time for discovery, because people are suddenly willing to consider these substances as therapeutics again, which hasn’t happened in 50 years.” Doblin added that it wasn’t the MDMA that produced the therapeutic effect, “it’s the therapy enhanced by the drug.” MDMA combined with therapy was thought to allow the brain to process painful memories and heal itself.

For this process to work, a person must be primed to engage with their trauma. Participants first undertook preparatory sessions with two trained therapists. Then in three sessions of eight-hours each, spaced a month apart, they received either an inactive placebo or MDMA. Neither the participants nor the therapists knew which. While most participants correctly guessed whether they received a placebo or MDMA, this did not undermine the study’s results or its methodology, which was agreed to in advance by the F.D.A.

“MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD,” concluded from their results that MDMA-assisted therapy could be a potential breakthrough therapy. The authors speculated that the pharmacological properties of MDMA, when combined with therapy, could produce a ‘window of tolerance,’ where participants could revisit and then process traumatic events without becoming overwhelmed. The acute prosocial and interpersonal effects of MDMA seem to support the quality of the therapeutic alliance, “a potentially important factor relating to PTSD treatment adherence and outcome.” They even found it effective with comorbid issues such as childhood trauma, depression and dissociation.

PTSD is a particularly persistent and incapacitating condition when expressed in conjunction with other disorders of mood and affect. In the present study, perhaps most compelling are the data indicating efficacy in participants with chronic and severe PTSD, and the associated comorbidities including childhood trauma, depression, suicidality, history of alcohol and substance use disorders, and dissociation, because these groups are all typically considered treatment resistant. Given that more than 80% of those assigned a PTSD diagnosis have at least one comorbid disorder, the identification of a therapy that is effective in those with complicated PTSD and dual diagnoses could greatly improve PTSD treatment. Additional studies should therefore be conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in those with specific comorbidities.

The Salon article, “Why mental health researchers are studying psychedelics all wrong,” was written by two psychedelic advocates who said they have worked for decades with thousands of people. They questioned whether the current mental health industry was the place for psychedelic drugs. There is a history of supposed breakthrough modalities that would bring psychiatry into the realm of medical science. “Yet none of these claims have demonstrated a high benchmark of legitimate authority, and many have even been harmful.” The authors thought there would be a substantial loss when psychedelics were medicalized.

The model for introducing psychedelics into a medical framework is being defined by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), the most visible and politically connected psychedelic organization. Their flagship research project is using MDMA, a psychostimulant, to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a diagnosis that has become increasingly common. Its public association with war vets and sexual abuse survivors makes PTSD the perfect public relations focus for psychedelics as the next medical breakthrough.

If psychedelics hold promise, the authors said, it may be a result of the drugs not working in a linear fashion or providing overnight results. They can lead people on paths of self-inquiry and growth that don’t become evident until years later. As Robert Whitaker pointed out, this doesn’t fit with a medical model that gets FDA approval. The reductive research of the FDA process requires a strict protocol that leads to replicable changes for anyone with a given diagnosis. “Why do you need a doctor for that? Why do you go to medical school for that?”

There is a need for research into psychedelics as they present an opportunity to recontextualize how we think about and experience suffering. However, drowned in the media hype of psychedelic advocacy organizations and the mental health industry, there is little public discourse about the potential implications of moving psychedelics into a system with such a problematic history.

The medicalization of psychedelics raises several questions about psychopharmacology and psychiatry. With psychedelics, their sensitivity to set and setting—the psychological and physical environments of their consumption—has been known for a long time. This compels researchers to consider the context as a variable when measuring the effectiveness of psychedelic substances. Does this mean that the FDA is moving away from its essentialist methodology for drug approval? A double-blind methodology can’t be implemented, effectively neutralizing this “gold standard” of scientific investigation embedded in the FDA’s methodology. Rick Doblin acknowledged this above when he admitted that most participants correctly guessed whether or not they received a placebo or MDMA.

If MDMA-assisted therapy ever achieves FDA approval to treat PTSD, it will challenge the scientific foundation upon which Western drug testing has depended for decades. Assuming the FDA ultimately approves MDMA-assisted therapy, does this signal the agency’s willingness to modify its clinical trial protocols for other potential “breakthrough” therapies? Will we be able to trust that the findings of a flexible methodology are truly scientific? In its pursuit of the next breakthrough therapy, is psychiatry moving away from a consistently scientific evaluation of its effectiveness? Michael Pollan, in his best-selling book, How to Change Your Mind, made similar observations:

Western science and modern drug testing depend on the ability to isolate a single variable, but it isn’t clear that the effects of a psychedelic drug can ever be isolated, whether from the context in which it is administered, the presence of the therapists involved, or the volunteer’s expectations. Any of these factors can muddy the waters of causality. And how is Western medicine to evaluate a psychiatric drug that appears to work not by means of any strictly pharmacological effect but by administering a certain kind of experience in the minds of people who take it?

For one future psychiatrist, his youthful LSD trip led to an insight that focused his attention on psychopharmacology. Jeffrey Lieberman is the Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University, and a former president of the American Psychiatric Association. In his book Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry, he described how an LSD trip played a role in his professional development. In 1968, as a junior at Miami University in Oxford Ohio, Lieberman decided to try LSD.

He jotted down notes on his insights while tripping, expecting to revisit “these profound pearls of wisdom” once the drug wore off. Afterwards, he found his notes either “boringly mundane” or “ludicrously nonsensical.” He learned that “Just because a person believes he is having a cosmic encounter—whether because of drug or mental illness—it doesn’t mean he is.” However, there was one lasting insight for which he is still grateful.

Though my LSD-fueled reverie dissipated with the light of the morning, I marveled at the fact that such an incredibly minute amount of a chemical—50 to 100 micrograms, a fraction of a grain of salt—could so profoundly affect my perceptions and emotions. It struck me that if LSD could so dramatically alter my cognition, the chemistry of the brain must be susceptible to pharmacologic manipulation in other ways, including ways that could be therapeutic.

Lieberman’s LSD experience led him to become a biological psychiatrist and not a surgeon or neurologist. Yet, his generation of psychiatrists has failed to discover the underlying causes of mental illnesses. And now it seems psychiatrists are turning back to see if psychedelics can be used as medicine. What a long, strange trip it has been for psychedelic psychiatry.

Faith Seeking Understanding

Charles Sigler, D.Phil.

Tag: psychedelic psychotherapy