Cost-effectiveness of psilocybin-assisted therapy for severe depression: exploratory findings from a decision analytic model.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence to support the use of the psychedelic drug psilocybin for difficult-to-treat depression. This paper compares the cost-effectiveness of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) with conventional medication, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and the combination of conventional medication and CBT. METHODS: A decision model simulated patient events (response, remission, and relapse) following treatment. Data on probabilities, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from previous studies or from best estimates. Expected healthcare and societal costs and QALYs over a 6-month time period were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were used to address uncertainty in parameter estimates. RESULTS: The expected healthcare cost of PAP varied from £6132 to £7652 depending on the price of psilocybin. This compares to £3528 for conventional medication alone, £4250 for CBT alone, and £4197 for their combination. QALYs were highest for psilocybin (0.310), followed by CBT alone (0.283), conventional medication alone (0.278), and their combination (0.287). Psilocybin was shown to be cost-effective compared to the other therapies when the cost of therapist support was reduced by 50% and the psilocybin price was reduced from its initial value to £400 to £800 per person. From a societal perspective, psilocybin had improved cost-effectiveness compared to a healthcare perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Psilocybin has the potential to be a cost-effective therapy for severe depression. This depends on the level of psychological support that is given to patients receiving psilocybin and the price of the drug itself. Further data on long-term outcomes are required to improve the evidence base.

Prescribed Medical Cannabis Use Among Older Individuals: Patient Characteristics and Improvements in Well-Being: Findings from T21.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has suggested that the use of cannabis-based medicinal products is increasing most rapidly among older aged individuals (65+ years). Despite this, little is known about the characteristics of older people using cannabis-based medicinal products and their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to document the characteristics, outcomes and prescribing patterns of individuals aged 65+ years receiving prescribed cannabis compared to younger individuals receiving prescribed cannabis. METHODS: Data from T21, an observational study of patients seeking treatment with medicinal cannabinoids, including self-report ratings of quality of life (assessed via the EQ-5D-5L), general health (assessed via the visual analogue scale of the EQ-5D-5L), mood (assessed via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and sleep (assessed using four items derived from the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) were available at treatment entry [n = 4228; 198 (4.7%) 65+ years] and at a 3-month follow-up [n = 2455; 98 (4.2%) = 65+ years]. RESULTS: Relative to younger individuals, those aged over 64 years were more likely to be female (52.5% vs 47.0%; p < 0.001), more likely to report pain as their primary condition (76.3% vs 45.6%; p < 0.001) and less likely to report current daily use (20.2% vs 60.3%, p < 0.001). They received fewer cannabis-based medicinal products (mean = 1.4 vs 2.1; F(1,2199) = 32.3, p < 0.001) and were more likely to receive a prescription for a cannabidiol dominant oil (17.5% vs 5.7%; p < 0.001) and less likely to receive a prescription for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol dominant flower (32.5% vs 75.2%; p < 0.001). There were significant improvements across all measures of well-being (p < 0.001), but the extent of improvements in sleep were more marked in younger individuals (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences between individuals aged 65+ years and younger individuals receiving cannabis-based medicinal products. Older aged individuals experience considerable improvement in health and well-being when prescribed cannabis-based medicinal products.

ARC: a framework for access, reciprocity and conduct in psychedelic therapies.

The field of psychedelic assisted therapy (PAT) is growing at an unprecedented pace. The immense pressures this places on those working in this burgeoning field have already begun to raise important questions about risk and responsibility. It is imperative that the development of an ethical and equitable infrastructure for psychedelic care is prioritized to support this rapid expansion of PAT in research and clinical settings. Here we present Access, Reciprocity and Conduct (ARC); a framework for a culturally informed ethical infrastructure for ARC in psychedelic therapies. These three parallel yet interdependent pillars of ARC provide the bedrock for a sustainable psychedelic infrastructure which prioritized equal access to PAT for those in need of mental health treatment (Access), promotes the safety of those delivering and receiving PAT in clinical contexts (Conduct), and respects the traditional and spiritual uses of psychedelic medicines which often precede their clinical use (Reciprocity). In the development of ARC, we are taking a novel dual-phase co-design approach. The first phase involves co-development of an ethics statement for each arm with stakeholders from research, industry, therapy, community, and indigenous settings. A second phase will further disseminate the statements for collaborative review to a wider audience from these different stakeholder communities within the psychedelic therapy field to invite feedback and further refinement. By presenting ARC at this early stage, we hope to draw upon the collective wisdom of the wider psychedelic community and inspire the open dialogue and collaboration upon which the process of co-design depends. We aim to offer a framework through which psychedelic researchers, therapists and other stakeholders, may begin tackling the complex ethical questions arising within their own organizations and individual practice of PAT.

Adverse effects of psychedelics: From anecdotes and misinformation to systematic science.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing body of research highlighting their efficacy to treat a broad range of medical conditions, psychedelic drugs remain a controversial issue among the public and politicians, tainted by previous stigmatisation and perceptions of risk and danger. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review examines the evidence for potential harms of the classic psychedelics by separating anecdotes and misinformation from systematic research. METHODS: Taking a high-level perspective, we address both psychological and psychiatric risks, such as abuse liability and potential for dependence, as well as medical harms, including toxicity and overdose. We explore the evidence base for these adverse effects to elucidate which of these harms are based largely on anecdotes versus those that stand up to current scientific scrutiny. RESULTS: Our review shows that medical risks are often minimal, and that many - albeit not all - of the persistent negative perceptions of psychological risks are unsupported by the currently available scientific evidence, with the majority of reported adverse effects not being observed in a regulated and/or medical context. CONCLUSIONS: This highlights the importance for clinicians and therapists to keep to the highest safety and ethical standards. It is imperative not to be overzealous and to ensure balanced media reporting to avoid future controversies, so that much needed research can continue.

A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Comparing Pharmacotherapy for Chronic Neuropathic Pain, Including Cannabinoids and Cannabis-Based Medical Products.

Background: Pharmacological management of chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) still represents a major clinical challenge. Collective harnessing of both the scientific evidence base and clinical experience (of clinicians and patients) can play a key role in informing treatment pathways and contribute to the debate on specific treatments (e.g., cannabinoids). A group of expert clinicians (pain specialists and psychiatrists), scientists, and patient representatives convened to assess the relative benefit-safety balance of 12 pharmacological treatments, including orally administered cannabinoids/cannabis-based medicinal products, for the treatment of CNP in adults. Methods: A decision conference provided the process of creating a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) model, in which the group collectively scored the drugs on 17 effect criteria relevant to benefits and safety and then weighted the criteria for their clinical relevance. Findings: Cannabis-based medicinal products consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (THC/CBD), in a 1:1 ratio, achieved the highest overall score, 79 (out of 100), followed by CBD dominant at 75, then THC dominant at 72. Duloxetine and the gabapentinoids scored in the 60s, amitriptyline, tramadol, and ibuprofen in the 50s, methadone and oxycodone in the 40s, and morphine and fentanyl in the 30s. Sensitivity analyses showed that even if the pain reduction and quality-of-life scores for THC/CBD and THC are halved, their benefit-safety balances remain better than those of the noncannabinoid drugs. Interpretation: The benefit-safety profiles for cannabinoids were higher than for other commonly used medications for CNP largely because they contribute more to quality of life and have a more favorable side effect profile. The results also reflect the shortcomings of alternative pharmacological treatments with respect to safety and mitigation of neuropathic pain symptoms. Further high-quality clinical trials and systematic comprehensive capture of clinical experience with cannabinoids is warranted. These results demonstrate once again the complexity and multimodal mechanisms underlying the clinical experience and impact of chronic pain.

Cannabis based medicines and cannabis dependence: A critical review of issues and evidence.

Cannabis has been legalised for medical use in an ever-increasing number of countries. A growing body of scientific evidence supports the use of medical cannabis for a range of therapeutic indications. In parallel with these developments, concerns have been expressed by many prescribers that increased use will lead to patients developing cannabis use disorder. Cannabis use disorder has been widely studied in recreational users, and these findings have often been projected onto patients using medical cannabis. However, studies exploring medical cannabis dependence are scarce and the appropriate methodology to measure this construct is uncertain. This article provides a narrative review of the current research to discern if, how and to what extent, concerns about problems of dependence in recreational cannabis users apply to prescribed medical users. We focus on the main issues related to medical cannabis and dependence, including the importance of dose, potency, cannabinoid content, pharmacokinetics and route of administration, frequency of use, as well as set and setting. Medical and recreational cannabis use differs in significant ways, highlighting the challenges of extrapolating findings from the recreational cannabis literature. There are many questions about the potential for medical cannabis use to lead to dependence. It is therefore imperative to address these questions in order to be able to minimise harms of medical cannabis use. We draw out seven recommendations for increasing the safety of medical cannabis prescribing. We hope that the present review contributes to answering some of the key questions surrounding medical cannabis dependence.