If the Doors of Perception Were Cleansed, Would Chronic Pain be Relieved? Evaluating the Benefits and Risks of Psychedelics.

Psychedelic substances have played important roles in diverse cultures, and ingesting various plant preparations to evoke altered states of consciousness has been described throughout recorded history. Accounts of the subjective effects of psychedelics typically focus on spiritual and mystical-type experiences, including feelings of unity, sacredness, and transcendence. Over the past 2 decades, there has been increasing interest in psychedelics as treatments for various medical disorders, including chronic pain. Although concerns about adverse medical and psychological effects contributed to their controlled status, contemporary knowledge of psychedelics suggests that risks are relatively rare when patients are carefully screened, prepared, and supervised. Clinical trial results have provided support for the effectiveness of psychedelics in different psychiatric conditions. However, there are only a small number of generally uncontrolled studies of psychedelics in patients with chronic pain (eg, cancer pain, phantom limb pain, migraine, and cluster headache). Challenges in evaluating psychedelics as treatments for chronic pain include identifying neurobiologic and psychosocial mechanisms of action and determining which pain conditions to investigate. Truly informative proof-of-concept and confirmatory randomized clinical trials will require careful selection of control groups, efforts to minimize bias from unblinding, and attention to the roles of patient mental set and treatment setting. PERSPECTIVE: There is considerable promise for the use of psychedelic therapy for pain, but evidence-based recommendations for the design of future studies are needed to ensure that the results of this research are truly informative.

Reassessment of the risk of narcolepsy in children in England 8 years after receipt of the AS03-adjuvanted H1N1 pandemic vaccine: A case-coverage study.

BACKGROUND: Early studies of narcolepsy after AS03-adjuvanted pandemic A/H1N12009 vaccine (Pandemrix) could not define the duration of elevated risk post-vaccination nor the risk in children aged under 5 years who may not present until much older. METHODS/FINDINGS: Clinical information and sleep test results, extracted from hospital notes at 3 large pediatric sleep centers in England between September 2017 and June 2018 for narcolepsy cases aged 4-19 years with symptom onset since January 2009, were reviewed by an expert panel to confirm the diagnosis. Vaccination histories were independently obtained from general practitioners (GPs). The odds of vaccination in narcolepsy cases compared with the age-matched English population was calculated after adjustment for clinical conditions that were indications for vaccination. GP questionnaires were returned for 242 of the 244 children with confirmed narcolepsy. Of these 5 were under 5 years, 118 were 5-11 years, and 119 were 12-19 years old at diagnosis; 39 were vaccinated with Pandemrix before onset. The odds ratio (OR) for onset at any time after vaccination was 1.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-2.89), The elevated risk period was restricted to onsets within 12 months of vaccination (OR 6.65 [3.44-12.85]) and was highest within the first 6 months. After one year, ORs were not significantly different from 1 up to 8 years after vaccination. The ORs were similar in under five-year-olds and older ages. The estimated attributable risk was 1 in 34,500 doses. Our study is limited by including cases from only 3 sleep centers, who may differ from cases diagnosed in nonparticipating centers, and by imprecision in defining the centers' catchment population. The potential for biased recall of onset shortly after vaccination in cases aware of the association cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that vaccine-attributable cases have onset of narcolepsy within 12 months of Pandemrix vaccination. The attributable risk is higher than previously estimated in England because of identification of vaccine-attributable cases with late diagnoses. Absence of a compensatory drop in risk 1-8 years after vaccination suggests that Pandemrix does not trigger onsets in those in whom narcolepsy would have occurred later.

Administration of AS03B-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine in children aged <3 years enhances antibody response to H3 and B viruses following a single dose of trivalent vaccine one year later.

BACKGROUND: We report on a follow-up clinical and serological investigation of 274 children who received seasonal influenza vaccine (trivalent inactivated vaccine [TIV]) 1 year after receipt of either AS03(B)-adjuvanted subunit or whole virus monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine and describe the antibody responses to the H3N2 A/Perth/16/2009 and B/Brisbane/60/2008 components of TIV. METHODS: Vaccine responses were analyzed using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assays. In children aged <3 years, previous receipt of adjuvanted vaccine resulted in higher HAI antibody responses to H3N2 and B strains compared with nonadjuvanted vaccine (fold change 16.8 vs 4.3 for H3N2 and 7.0 vs 1.6 for B). In children aged >3 years, responses to the H3 and B components of TIV were similar between vaccine groups. Sera taken before and after the pandemic vaccine were also analyzed by HAI using A/Perth/16/2009 virus. This analysis showed that 11.1% of children receiving the AS03(B)-adjuvanted vaccine but only 1.4% in the nonadjuvanted group had a 4-fold rise to A/Perth/16/2009. CONCLUSION: AS03B-adjuvanted A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccine generates a cross-reactive antibody response to H3N2 in children and enhances responses to heterologous subtypes in children aged <3 years 1 year later.

Predictors of immune response and reactogenicity to AS03B-adjuvanted split virion and non-adjuvanted whole virion H1N1 (2009) pandemic influenza vaccines.

In 2009, 943 children aged 6 months to 10 years were randomised to receive two doses of an oil-in water AS03B-adjuvanted split virion or a non-adjuvanted whole virion H1N1 (2009) vaccine. The large numbers allowed investigation of possible predictors of immune response and reactogenicity. We used regression analysis to examine the effect of variables including past receipt of seasonal vaccine, antipyretics post-vaccination, interval between doses and pre-existing antibodies to H1N1 (2009) on immunogenicity. We also examined the relationship between immunogenicity and reactogenicity and whether prior infection or underlying conditions affected reactogenicity. For both vaccines, haemagglutination-inhibition titres were 60% higher in children with fever ≥38 °C after vaccination and 29% lower in those previously given seasonal vaccine. Early use of antipyretics did not affect immunogenicity. Post-vaccination titres were higher with longer intervals between doses and in those with evidence of prior infection, but reactogenicity in the latter was unaffected. In the adjuvanted vaccine group, reactions were more common in children with atopy. Both vaccines were safe and immunogenic in those with prior infection. Reduction in the interval between doses for earlier protection would be at the cost of reduced immunogenicity. The effect of seasonal vaccine on immunogenicity merits further investigation.

Age-specific effectiveness of an oil-in-water adjuvanted pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine against confirmed infection in high risk groups in England.

BACKGROUND: The use of a squalene-containing (AS03) pandemic vaccine for high-risk groups in England allowed vaccine effectiveness (VE) of such novel oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccine to be evaluated. METHODS: Cases of laboratory-confirmed pandemic (H1N1)2009 influenza in England between November 2009 and January 2010 were followed up for history of pandemic (H1N1)2009 or 2009/10 seasonal influenza vaccination and relevant comorbidities. Controls were patients similarly tested but negative for the virus. We estimated pandemic (H1N1)2009 VE from the relative reduction in the odds of confirmed pandemic (H1N1)2009 infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals after adjustment for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 933 cases and 1220 controls were analyzed. VE from ≥ 14 days was 62% (95% CI 33% to 78%) with protection from 7 to 13 days post-vaccination (59%, 95% CI 12% to 81%). VE from ≥ 14 days differed by age (P = .03) being 77% (11% to 94%) in children <10 years, 100% (80% to 100%) in 10-24-year olds, 22% (-153% to 76%) in 25-49-year olds, and 41% (-71% to 80%) in 50-plus-year-olds. CONCLUSION: Use of oil-in-water adjuvant contributed to a high VE with reduced antigen dosage in children and young adults. Our VE estimate supports the serological correlates of protection used for licensure in these age groups. However, the immunological basis of disappointing VE in older adults merits investigation.

Novel, nonreflex tests detect analgesic action in rodents at clinically relevant concentrations.

We propose that predictive validity of tests for analgesia may be improved by looking to reinstate specific, innate behaviors suppressed by pain, e.g., burrowing, because effective plasma concentrations in the rat are closer to effective clinical plasma concentrations than those generally used in rodent reflex withdrawal assays.