82
submitted 2 months ago by ArcticDagger@feddit.dk to c/science@lemmy.world

But Marks points out that the FDA typically follows the advice of its independent advisory committees — and the one that evaluated MDMA in June overwhelmingly voted against approving the drug, citing problems with clinical trial design that the advisers felt made it difficult to determine the drug’s safety and efficacy. One concern was about the difficulty of conducting a true placebo-controlled study with a hallucinogen: around 90% of the participants in Lykos’s trials guessed correctly whether they had received the drug or a placebo, and the expectation that MDMA should have an effect might have coloured their perception of whether it treated their symptoms.

Another concern was about Lykos’s strategy of administering the drug alongside psychotherapy. Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), the non-profit organization that created Lykos, has said that he thinks the drug’s effects are inseparable from guided therapy. MDMA is thought to help people with PTSD be more receptive and open to revisiting traumatic events with a therapist. But because the FDA doesn’t regulate psychotherapy, the agency and advisory panel struggled to evaluate this claim. “It was an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole,” Marks says.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place 11 points 2 months ago

around 90% of the participants in Lykos’s trials guessed correctly whether they had received the drug or a placebo

I understand the logic with using a placebo comparison, but who cares if people got better solely because they know they took ecstasy?

[-] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 12 points 2 months ago

But if they know they're getting ecstasy, the improvement might originate from placebo which means that they're not actually getting better from ecstasy. They're just getting better because they think they should be getting better

[-] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's my point. What does it matter that they got better because they think they should get better? To me, what matters is that they got better, regardless of the reason. Bonus: they got high on ecstasy while under medical supervision.

Option A: Take a pill that doesn't feel like ecstasy and no one gets better.

Option B: Don't tell patients that ecstasy makes them feel better. Give them ecstacy. 20% of patients get better.

Option C: Tell patients that ecstasy can make them feel better. Give them ecstacy. 40% of patients get better.

Personally, option C seems like the most effective and thus preferred option. I don't see any downside whatsoever.

[-] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 2 points 2 months ago

To a certain extent I agree, but I also think it's a tricky topic that deals a fair bit with the ethics of medicine. The Atlantic has a pretty good article with arguments for and against: https://web.archive.org/web/20230201192052/https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/the-placebo-debate-is-it-unethical-to-prescribe-them-to-patients/250161/

Yes, in your three situations, I'd agree that option C is the best one. But you're disregarding a major component of any drug: side effects. Presumably ecstasy has some nonnegligible side effects so just looking at the improvement on the treated disease might now show the full picture

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
82 points (100.0% liked)

science

14651 readers
225 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS