Jacob S Aday1, Boris D Heifets2, Steven D Pratscher3, Ellen Bradley4, Raymond Rosen4, Joshua D Woolley4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, San Francisco VA Medical Center, University of California, 401 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. jacob.aday@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 3. Department of Community Dentistry and Behavioral Science, Pain Research and Intervention Center of Excellence, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, San Francisco VA Medical Center, University of California, 401 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Psychedelic research continues to garner significant public and scientific interest with a growing number of clinical studies examining a wide range of conditions and disorders. However, expectancy effects and effective condition masking have been raised as critical limitations to the interpretability of the research. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we review the many methodological challenges of conducting psychedelic clinical trials and provide recommendations for improving the rigor of future research. RESULTS: Although some challenges are shared with psychotherapy and pharmacology trials more broadly, psychedelic clinical trials have to contend with several unique sources of potential bias. The subjective effects of a high-dose psychedelic are often so pronounced that it is difficult to mask participants to their treatment condition; the significant hype from positive media coverage on the clinical potential of psychedelics influences participants' expectations for treatment benefit; and participant unmasking and treatment expectations can interact in such a way that makes psychedelic therapy highly susceptible to large placebo and nocebo effects. Specific recommendations to increase the success of masking procedures and reduce the influence of participant expectancies are discussed in the context of study development, participant recruitment and selection, incomplete disclosure of the study design, choice of active placebo condition, as well as the measurement of participant expectations and masking efficacy. CONCLUSION: Incorporating the recommended design elements is intended to reduce the risk of bias in psychedelic clinical trials and thereby increases the ability to discern treatment-specific effects of psychedelic therapy.
RATIONALE: Psychedelic research continues to garner significant public and scientific interest with a growing number of clinical studies examining a wide range of conditions and disorders. However, expectancy effects and effective condition masking have been raised as critical limitations to the interpretability of the research. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we review the many methodological challenges of conducting psychedelic clinical trials and provide recommendations for improving the rigor of future research. RESULTS: Although some challenges are shared with psychotherapy and pharmacology trials more broadly, psychedelic clinical trials have to contend with several unique sources of potential bias. The subjective effects of a high-dose psychedelic are often so pronounced that it is difficult to mask participants to their treatment condition; the significant hype from positive media coverage on the clinical potential of psychedelics influences participants' expectations for treatment benefit; and participant unmasking and treatment expectations can interact in such a way that makes psychedelic therapy highly susceptible to large placebo and nocebo effects. Specific recommendations to increase the success of masking procedures and reduce the influence of participant expectancies are discussed in the context of study development, participant recruitment and selection, incomplete disclosure of the study design, choice of active placebo condition, as well as the measurement of participant expectations and masking efficacy. CONCLUSION: Incorporating the recommended design elements is intended to reduce the risk of bias in psychedelic clinical trials and thereby increases the ability to discern treatment-specific effects of psychedelic therapy.
Authors: Jacob S Aday; Cayla M Mitzkovitz; Emily K Bloesch; Christopher C Davoli; Alan K Davis Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Anita Slade; An-Wen Chan; Madeleine T King; Amanda Hunn; Andrew Bottomley; Antoine Regnault; An-Wen Chan; Carolyn Ells; Daniel O'Connor; Dennis Revicki; Donald Patrick; Doug Altman; Ethan Basch; Galina Velikova; Gary Price; Heather Draper; Jane Blazeby; Jane Scott; Joanna Coast; Josephine Norquist; Julia Brown; Kirstie Haywood; Laura Lee Johnson; Lisa Campbell; Lori Frank; Maria von Hildebrand; Michael Brundage; Michael Palmer; Paul Kluetz; Richard Stephens; Robert M Golub; Sandra Mitchell; Trish Groves Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maggie Kamila Kiraga; Kim P C Kuypers; Malin Vedoy Uthaug; Johannes G Ramaekers; Natasha Leigh Mason Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Joost J Breeksema; Bouwe W Kuin; Jeanine Kamphuis; Wim van den Brink; Eric Vermetten; Robert A Schoevers Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2022-08-26 Impact factor: 4.562