Psychedelics, epilepsy, and seizures: a review.

Psychedelic compounds have been utilized by humans for centuries for medicinal, religious, and tribal purposes. Clinical trial data starting from the early 2000s and continuing today indicates that psychedelics are a clinically efficacious treatment for a variety of neurological and psychiatric disorders. However, all clinical trials examining these substances have excluded any individual with a past or current history of seizures, leaving a large cohort of epilepsy and non-epilepsy chronic seizure disorder patients without anywhere to turn for psychedelic-assisted therapy. These exclusions were made despite any significant evidence that clinically supervised psychedelic use causes or exacerbates seizures in this population. To date, no clinical trial or preclinical seizure model has demonstrated that psychedelics induce seizures. This review highlights several cases of individuals experiencing seizures or seizure remission following psychedelic use, with the overall trend being that psychedelics are safe for use in a controlled, supervised clinical setting. We also suggest future research directions for this field.

Wait times and patient throughput after the implementation of a novel model of virtual care in an outpatient neurology clinic: A retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Neurology wait times - from referral to consultation - continue to grow, leading to various adverse effects on patient outcomes. Key elements of virtual care can be leveraged to improve efficiency. This study examines the implementation of a novel virtual care model - Virtual Rapid Access Clinics - at the Neurology Centre of Toronto. The model employs a patient-centred care workflow, involving multidisciplinary staff and online administrative tools that are synthesized to expedite care and maintain quality. METHODS: Virtual Rapid Access Clinic efficacy was studied by determining average wait times and patient throughput, calculated from anonymous data that was extracted from the clinic patient database (n = 1542). Comparative analysis focused on new patient consultations during the 12-month periods prior to (pre-Virtual Rapid Access Clinic, n = 456) and following (post-Virtual Rapid Access Clinic, n = 1086) Virtual Rapid Access Clinic implementation. RESULTS: After Virtual Rapid Access Clinic implementation, there was a mean 15-day wait time reduction, and a monthly average 52-patient increase in patient throughput. Wait time reductions and increased patient throughput were observed in all three Virtual Rapid Access Clinic sub-clinics - epilepsy, headache and concussion. Respectively, average wait times reduced significantly by 26.4 and 18.9 days and insignificantly by 1.1 days; monthly average patient throughputs increased by 235%, 95% and 161%. DISCUSSION: These findings demonstrated that the Virtual Rapid Access Clinic model of care is effective at reducing patient wait times and increasing patient throughput. While the Virtual Rapid Access Clinic presents a feasible model both during and after pandemic restrictions, further research exploring its scalability in other care contexts, potential changes in care quality and efficiency outside of pandemic restrictions must be performed.

Letter to the editor on "Geotemporospatial and causal inferential epidemiological overview and survey of USA cannabis, cannabidiol and cannabinoid genotoxicity expressed in cancer incidence 2003-2017, parts 1-3".

We would like to thank authors Reece and Hulse (2022) for their three-part article titled "Geotemporospatial and causal inferential epidemiological overview and survey of USA cannabis, cannabidiol and cannabinoid genotoxicity expressed in cancer incidence 2003-2017", in which the authors infer that cannabis use has a causal role in the development of various cancer types. While the authors use reputable datasets and a well-established epidemiological methodology, the authors' conclusion of a causal association is limited due to biases inherent in ecological epidemiological studies. Though the researchers attempt to overcome these biases through validation and statistical manipulations, their approaches are insufficient to create conditions suitable for causal inferencing upon examination. There are also concerns in the practical and conceptual application of the studies' dataset that further question the validity of the authors' inferences. Further research exploring the potential benefits and harm of cannabinoids in the context of cancer must be performed before a distinct relationship can be defined.