Connect with us

Psychedelics

5 Takeaways from Colorado’s Proposition 122 – The Natural Medicine Health Act

Published

on


 

Article by: Partner Jeff Zuber, Counsel Raza Lawrence, and Associate Lizzie Fanckboner.

In November 2022, Colorado voters passed Proposition 122, the Natural Medicine Health Act (NMHA), which establishes a regulated natural medicine access program and provisions for personal use of natural medicines. Under this new law, Colorado will become the second US state – following Oregon – to issue licenses allowing the commercial production and administration of federally-illegal psychedelic substances.  The state-licensed psychedelic programs follow in the footsteps of cannabis state legalization initiatives adopted by states across the country that, like the psychedelic measures, license and regulate conduct under state law that constitutes a crime under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

  1. Regulated Psilocybin Program in Colorado

Just like Oregon’s psilocybin licensing program, Colorado’s state-regulated program will provide participants with access to natural psychedelic substances under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. The NMHA tasks Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) with overseeing and adopting rules to govern the natural medicine access program, taking guidance from the Natural Medicine Advisory Board’s recommendations. There are two initial license types contemplated by the statute – Licensed Healing Centers and Licensed Facilitators – but additional licenses and registrations may be created by DORA.

Although Colorado’s NMHA uses words typically associated with the medical and pharmaceutical industries – “medicine,” “health,” “treatment,” “recovery,” and “healing” – it does not contemplate any involvement of medical doctors.  Instead, Colorado’s law – like Oregon’s– will allow all people 21 years of age or older to purchase and use psychedelics, without the recommendation or approval of any doctor or other health care professional.

Colorado’s program will start with psilocybin and psilocin, but may be expanded after June 1, 2026 to include one or more of the other substances identified in the definition of “natural medicine”: DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline (but not mescaline extracted from peyote).

The definition of a “healing center”is broad and purposefully flexible.

 

(d) “HEALING CENTER” MEANS AN ENTITY LICENSED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT IS ORGANIZED AND OPERATED AS A PERMITTED ORGANIZATION:

(I) THAT ACQUIRES, POSSESSES, CULTIVATES, MANUFACTURES, DELIVERS, TRANSFERS, TRANSPORTS, SUPPLIES, SELLS, OR DISPENSES NATURAL MEDICINE AND RELATED SUPPLIES; OR PROVIDES NATURAL MEDICINE FOR NATURAL MEDICINE SERVICES AT LOCATIONS PERMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT; OR ENGAGES IN TWO OR MORE OF THESE ACTIVITIES;

(II) WHERE ADMINISTRATION SESSIONS ARE HELD; OR

(III) WHERE NATURAL MEDICINE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY A FACILITATOR.

There is a lot to unpack here, but suffice it to say, psychedelics can potentially be cultivated, sold, and consumed at any of a wide variety of locations under this definition.  The NMHA also directs DORA to establish rules that will allow for psychedelics to be administered in “another location” that is not a designated healing center, “as permitted by rules adopted by the Department.”  Such locations could potentially include private residences, other types of health-care facilities, and outdoor natural settings. With that said, we will see how the framework and boundaries take shape with the creation of the rules, which are scheduled to be adopted in 2024.

There will be training programs for facilitators and certain education and qualification requirements. Licensing for facilitators will be tiered, so as to provide for varying levels of education and training depending on the participants the facilitator will be working with and the services.

  1. Personal Use Now

Part of the NMHA removed criminal penalties for the personal use of natural medicine for persons 21 years of age or older. The personal use section is separate from the regulated natural medicine access program in the NMHA. Think of the NMHA as having two parts – one is the regulated natural medicine program and the provision of natural medicine services; and the other is personal use. The personal use provisions allow for the cultivation, processing, storing, using, transporting, obtaining and ingesting of natural medicines, including dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine, mescaline (not from peyote), psilocybin and psilocyn, for personal use. There are some boundaries to this personal-use decriminalization written into the NMHA, which are summarized below.

– Retail sales are prohibited. There is no retail market provided for, or intended by the NHMA, outside of what is allowed in the context of licensed healing centers. Outside of the licensed healing centers, a person may still charge for bona fide therapy or harm reduction services, or other support services with a connection to natural medicine, but there can be no remuneration for the natural medicine.

– Personal use is not allowed for those under the age of 21. A person who is under 21 year of age will be subject to a drug petty offense for possession, use, transporting, sharing, natural medicine or natural medicine paraphernalia, subject only to a penalty of more than four hours of drug education or counseling provided at no cost to the person.

– There is no cultivation or consumption permitted in schools, detention centers, public spaces or federal lands. Keep in mind that the natural medicines under NMHA are still schedule I substances, and are still federally illegal.

– People are not allowed to give away any amount of natural medicine as part of a business promotion or other commercial activity,

– People are not allowed “to permit paid advertising related to natural medicine, sharing of natural medicine, or services intended to be used concurrently with a person’s consumption of natural medicine.”  It is unclear how, or whether, this provision would apply to any advertising done in connection with licensed psilocybin healing centers.

The takeaway here is that the intent for personal use under the NMHA is to provide individuals with additional options for their mental health and spiritual growth, and to remove penalties associated with indigenous and traditional uses.

In practice, most people who use psychedelic substances acquire them from other people, whether or not any compensation exchanges hands.  Outside the context of licensed healing centers, any such transactions will continue to be prohibited, although the decriminalization of personal possession and use will likely result in fewer overall prosecutions, and a de-emphasis on prosecution of lower-level transactions.

  1. Colorado’s NMHA differs in notable respects from Oregon’s Psilocybin Services Act

There are several differences between Colorado’s NMHA and Oregon’s Psilocybin Services Act. A few salient points of comparison are outlined below.

Under Oregon’s Psilocybin Services Act, psilocybin may only be administered in licensed service centers. The effect is that the number of service centers will be limited and that limitation in turn reduces options and may increase costs. On the other hand, Colorado’s NHMA allows for the provision of psilocybin services outside of licensed healing centers and specifically contemplates natural medicine services being provided in places such a residential homes, community mental health centers, long-term care facilities, or other types of facilities where health care is provided. There is purposeful flexibility worked into the NMHA with regard to where natural medicine services may be provided. As the regulations are being developed, we will see exactly how this will look, but the hope is to create opportunities for equitable access to natural medicines.

Another difference is that Colorado does not have a residency requirement  written into the NMHA. We previously wrote about Oregon’s requirement that psilocybin businesses be majority-owned by Oregon residents here.

Oregon’s psychedelics program is limited to the licensing and regulation of psilocybin activities.  Colorado’s program, however, expressly contemplates extending the licensing program to cover the distribution and administration of three other psychedelic substances: DMT, ibogaine, and certain forms of mescaline.

Colorado’s NMHA contemplates that licensed healing centers will be allowed to cultivate and manufacture psychedelic substances in addition to administering them to adults.  Oregon, by contrast, has separate license types for psilocybin manufacturers and psilocybin service centers, contemplating that many businesses may focus on either manufacturing or administration, and will not be a single vertically-integrated organization.

Colorado’s NMHA decriminalizes the personal possession and use of various psychedelic substances, while Oregon’s psilocybin licensing program did not address personal use of psilocybin outside the context of licensed service centers.  Oregon, however, passed a law in November 2020 (Measure 110) decriminalizing the possession for personal use of small amounts of all controlled substances, making such conduct civil infractions punishable only by citation and a $100 fine (which can be waived by calling a hotline to screen for substance use disorder).

Finally, the Oregon Psilocybin Services Act provided an out for local jurisdictions whose residents did not want to participate in the program. As such, many cities and counties opted out of the program in this past November’s election. Conversely, under Colorado’s NMHA, a local jurisdiction may not completely prohibit the establishment or operation of a healing center. Localities can, however, enact reasonable ordinances and regulations so long as they do not conflict with NMHA, and thus will have the practical ability to make it difficult for psychedelic businesses to operate.These are just a few points and only skim the surface in the comparison of the two programs. As Colorado gets moving on discussing the regulations, we will see start to see the program take shape.

  1. Will it be like the cannabis industry?

Yes and no.

While both industries contemplate a state-regulated program or industry that is illegal under federal law, one major difference is that the NMHA is not intended to create an open retail market like we are all familiar with in the cannabis industry. The intention of the NMHA is to create a program for the supervised use of natural medicines, starting with psilocybin or psilocin, but the NMHA does not contemplate a dispensary model, or retail sales outside the context of supervised use.

On the similarity side, interested parties hoping to enter this new ecosystem of natural medicine and natural medicine services will face barriers similar to those that the cannabis industry confronted. The common denominator between the two industries is the fact that cannabis and psilocybin are both listed on schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, psilocybin businesses will face issues with taxes (280E), access to banking (or lack thereof), buying or leasing property for the business (cost, lease agreements, etc.), obtaining insurance, and securing federal trademark protection.  As with cannabis businesses, absent a change in federal law, everyone participating in Colorado’s licensed psychedelic industry will also face the continuous threat of federal criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture, even if operating in full compliance with state laws.

  1. What is coming up?

The first date to keep in mind is January 31st. By then, the Governor of Colorado will have hopefully appointed the members of the Natural Medicine Advisory Board, who will be drafting recommendations for the regulations, to provide to DORA.

Next, by September 2023, we will hopefully see recommendations from the Natural Medicine Advisory Board for DORA’s eventual rules, as well as recommendations related to research, training, product safety, harm reduction, cultural responsibility, and requirements to ensure that the regulated natural medicine access program is equitable and inclusive, just to name a few.

Then, by a year from now, DORA is expected to adopt rules that establish the qualifications, education, and training requirements that facilitators must meet before providing natural medicine services and to approve any required training programs.

Finally, by September 30, 2024, the rules governing the program should be adopted and DORA will open its doors to accepting applications, which by law are to be processed and approved or rejected within 60 days of submission.

In the meantime, interested parties can participate in the rulemaking process, work on developing a corporate structure and business plan, engage with local officials and community groups regarding zoning and other local considerations that may impact psychedelic businesses, and start discussions with their CPA or accountant on a tax strategy.

Psychedelics



Source link

Continue Reading

addiction

Can Psychedelics Treat Addiction and Alcoholism?

Published

on

By


Psychedelics, once associated primarily with counterculture and recreational drug use, are now being seriously studied for their therapeutic potential in treating drug addiction and alcoholism. Recent research has shown that substances like psilocybin, LSD, and ayahuasca may have profound benefits for individuals struggling with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) and substance use disorders (SUD). These compounds are being reconsidered not only for their ability to induce altered states of consciousness but also for their potential to address addictive behaviors and psychological trauma at the root of addiction.

Psilocybin’s Efficacy in Treating Alcohol Use Disorder

One groundbreaking study, conducted at New York University and Johns Hopkins University, demonstrated the potential of psilocybin in treating Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). The researchers focused on individuals with severe AUD, administering two doses of psilocybin in conjunction with psychotherapy. The results were notable: participants reported a 50% reduction in heavy drinking days over an eight-month period, with some maintaining abstinence from alcohol even a year later.

The trial followed a double-blind, randomized approach and found that the therapeutic effects of psilocybin were superior to those observed with placebo treatments. Dr. Michael Bogenschutz, a lead researcher in the study, emphasized the importance of the psychedelic experience itself in breaking the cycle of addiction. Psilocybin appears to help patients break through entrenched mental patterns, often revealing deeper emotional connections and realizations that drive more meaningful behavior change​.

How Psychedelics Influence the Brain to Combat Addiction

The mechanism behind the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction is thought to involve neuroplasticity, or the brain’s ability to reorganize and form new connections. By interacting with serotonin 2A receptors, particularly in the prefrontal cortex and default mode network, psychedelics can enable profound shifts in perception and cognition. These altered states of consciousness allow individuals to confront underlying psychological issues, such as trauma or negative emotional patterns, which are often at the core of addictive behaviors​.

Many individuals undergoing psychedelic-assisted therapy report experiencing a “reset” of their mental state, facilitating a more open mindset that helps them engage with therapy in a deeper, more effective way. This contrasts with traditional addiction treatments, such as methadone or buprenorphine, which primarily manage withdrawal symptoms but do not address the psychological components of addiction.

LSD and Its Potential in Addiction Treatment

LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) has also shown promise in treating addiction, particularly alcoholism. Early studies from the 1950s to the 1970s suggested that LSD might help reduce alcohol dependency, but interest in this line of research waned due to regulatory crackdowns on psychedelic research. However, more recent studies have reignited interest in LSD’s therapeutic potential.

A meta-analysis published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology reviewed data from six trials involving over 500 patients. It concluded that a single high dose of LSD, administered in a therapeutic setting, was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption. The study found that LSD’s psychedelic effects could lead to lasting changes in personality traits, such as openness and emotional resilience, which are crucial for overcoming addiction​.

Ayahuasca and Addiction Recovery

Ayahuasca, a traditional Amazonian brew containing DMT (dimethyltryptamine) and MAO inhibitors, has been the focus of recent studies examining its potential to treat addiction. Researchers have found that ayahuasca’s intense psychoactive properties, combined with its ability to facilitate introspection and emotional healing, may help individuals overcome opioid and stimulant addiction. A study published in Frontiers in Pharmacology noted that ayahuasca led to significant improvements in mental health and reductions in addictive behaviors​.

Ayahuasca ceremonies, often conducted in a spiritual context, have been shown to promote healing through vivid and sometimes challenging visions. Participants often report gaining insights into the underlying causes of their addiction, leading to long-lasting psychological benefits.

Challenges in Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy

While the results of these studies are promising, the use of psychedelics in treating addiction is not without challenges. For one, the psychedelic experience itself can be unpredictable, and not all patients experience the profound mystical or emotional breakthroughs associated with positive outcomes. The effectiveness of psychedelic-assisted therapy appears to be linked to the quality of the therapeutic environment and the expertise of the facilitators, meaning that careful preparation and integration are key to success.

Moreover, while psychedelics like psilocybin and LSD do not appear to be physically addictive, their use must still be carefully regulated to prevent potential psychological risks, such as hallucinations, anxiety, or psychotic episodes in vulnerable individuals. Current research emphasizes the need for controlled settings where trained therapists can guide patients through their psychedelic experiences.

Ongoing Research and Future Directions

Given the promising early results, psychedelic research is entering a new phase, with larger clinical trials currently underway. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently allocated $2.4 million to explore the use of psychedelics in treating methamphetamine addiction, further solidifying the role of psychedelics in addiction therapy​. Similarly, ongoing studies are looking into psilocybin’s potential to treat opioid addiction and cocaine dependence, conditions that have been notoriously difficult to treat with conventional methods.

As research progresses, it is likely that psilocybin, LSD, and other psychedelics will become more widely recognized as effective tools for addiction treatment. While more research is needed to fine-tune these therapies and better understand their long-term effects, early indications are that psychedelics could revolutionize addiction and alcoholism treatments in the coming decades.

Conclusion

Psychedelics like psilocybin, LSD, and ayahuasca are emerging as potential breakthrough therapies for treating drug addiction and alcoholism. By promoting neuroplasticity and addressing the psychological roots of addiction, these substances offer an alternative to traditional addiction treatments, which often focus on managing symptoms rather than curing the disease. With ongoing research and increasing clinical trials, psychedelic-assisted therapy may become an essential tool in the fight against substance use disorders, offering hope to millions of people who struggle with addiction, such as alcoholism.

Sources

Johns Hopkins Medicine: Psychedelics in Addiction Treatment
Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research on Psychedelics
Frontiers in Pharmacology: Ayahuasca for Addiction Recovery
JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery



Source link

Continue Reading

cocaine

Prince Harry’s U.S. Visa Drug Case Quietly Closed, Details Sealed

Published

on

By


The U.S. legal case surrounding Prince Harry’s visa application and his admitted drug use has quietly come to a close, with a federal judge issuing a sealed ruling. The case was initiated after Prince Harry’s public revelations in his memoir, Spare, where he openly discussed his past use of drugs such as cocaine and psychedelics. These admissions raised questions about whether he received special treatment from U.S. immigration authorities, as such disclosures could, under normal circumstances, complicate or bar entry to the U.S. under existing immigration laws.

The legal action was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, which sought transparency regarding whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) followed standard procedure when granting Harry his visa. They filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel DHS to release Prince Harry’s visa records. The group’s argument was rooted in the public’s right to know if a high-profile figure like Harry was given preferential treatment in his immigration process.

The Sealed Ruling and Lack of Public Disclosure

The federal judge, Carl Nichols, closed the case quietly and opted to seal the ruling, meaning the public will not have access to the details of the decision. This has left many questions unanswered, particularly around whether Prince Harry’s admissions of prior drug use were factored into his visa application process. Under U.S. immigration law, prior drug use can be grounds for visa denial, especially if disclosed during the application process. However, because the ruling is sealed, it remains unclear if his application received special consideration.

Legal experts believe that sealing the ruling is not uncommon in cases involving privacy concerns or high-profile individuals. The closure of the case without public disclosure could be an effort to shield the U.S. government and Prince Harry from further scrutiny while allowing room for potential appeals or other legal steps that may be taken in private​.

Background and Public Interest

The legal scrutiny of Prince Harry’s visa application came after his candid admissions in Spare and various interviews where he spoke openly about using drugs, including psychedelics for therapeutic purposes. In his memoir, Harry detailed his use of drugs to cope with the mental and emotional stress following his mother, Princess Diana’s, death. He also admitted to using cocaine recreationally in his youth. His honesty sparked debates over whether someone with his history would ordinarily be permitted to live in the United States, raising concerns about the transparency of U.S. immigration processes when it comes to high-profile individuals.

The Heritage Foundation argued that the public deserved to know if DHS had granted Harry any exemptions or leniencies in light of his admissions. Under normal circumstances, U.S. visa applicants are required to disclose any drug use, which can lead to rejection or additional scrutiny in the application process. Despite these concerns, the judge’s ruling, by being sealed, avoids making any explicit details about Harry’s visa or potential leniencies publicly available.

Legal Precedents and Considerations

Immigration law experts have noted that while drug use is generally a red flag for visa applicants, there are pathways to admission even for those who have admitted to previous drug use. The case, however, has raised broader questions about the fairness and consistency of U.S. immigration enforcement. It is unknown if Harry’s celebrity status played any role in the handling of his visa application, and the sealed ruling leaves room for speculation.

Additionally, under U.S. law, drug use disclosed after entry into the country, such as through a memoir, does not automatically trigger deportation or visa cancellation. The DHS’s refusal to release Harry’s visa records—despite the public interest—further fuels debate over the transparency and fairness of how immigration laws are applied to individuals with high profiles.

Prince Harry’s U.S. Visa Drug Case Quietly Closed, Details Sealed
Prince Harry’s U.S. Visa Drug Case Quietly Closed, Details Sealed

The Heritage Foundation’s Argument

The Heritage Foundation, which pursued the FOIA lawsuit, has expressed disappointment with the closure of the case and the sealed ruling. They maintain that the public deserves to know whether Prince Harry was treated differently than ordinary applicants. The case, however, highlights a tension between the public’s right to know and the privacy rights of individuals, particularly those with a high level of fame and media attention.

Despite the Foundation’s push for transparency, the government’s stance on withholding the records reflects the complexities of balancing public interest with personal privacy, especially under the protections afforded by U.S. immigration law. The sealed ruling may indicate that no significant irregularities were found, but without public access to the decision, speculation remains.

What’s Next?

Although the case has been closed, Prince Harry’s visa status may remain a point of public interest, especially in light of upcoming political dynamics. Notably, former U.S. President Donald Trump hinted that, if re-elected, he might re-examine Prince Harry’s visa status, potentially opening up further political debates about immigration policies for high-profile individuals.

For now, the case’s quiet closure suggests that both the U.S. government and Prince Harry prefer to avoid further public scrutiny, keeping the specifics of his visa application confidential.

Conclusion

Prince Harry’s visa case, which raised questions about his admissions of drug use and how they were handled by U.S. immigration authorities, has been quietly closed with a sealed ruling. While the decision leaves many questions unanswered, it highlights the complex interplay between privacy, public interest, and immigration law. The public may never fully know whether Harry’s visa was granted under special conditions or if his case was handled routinely, but the debate over transparency in immigration decisions involving high-profile individuals will likely persist.



Source link

Continue Reading

clinical trials

FDA Puts MDMA for PTSD on Hold: No More Psychedelics?

Published

on

By


In a move that surprised many in the mental health and psychedelic communities, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter (CRL) to Lykos Therapeutics, halting the approval of MDMA-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The FDA is calling for additional clinical trials to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of the treatment, delaying what could have been a significant moment in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.

The FDA’s Decision: More Data Required

The FDA’s CRL highlights the agency’s request for another Phase 3 clinical trial before approving MDMA for PTSD. This additional trial will focus on gathering long-term safety and efficacy data. While previous studies showed promising results, the FDA expressed concerns about potential risks, suggesting the evidence provided so far was not sufficient for approval.

This decision is a setback for advocates and researchers who have spent years pushing for the approval of MDMA-AT. Rick Doblin, PhD, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), expressed disappointment but remains committed to advancing the therapy. Lykos Therapeutics has also indicated that it will work to meet the FDA’s requirements by either providing new data or addressing concerns with existing literature.

MDMA: A Promising Yet Controversial Treatment

MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, has shown promise in treating PTSD. The therapy combines MDMA with psychotherapy, helping patients confront and process traumatic memories. Studies suggest that MDMA-AT could provide lasting relief for PTSD sufferers, many of whom do not respond to conventional treatments like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

Key Studies on MDMA and PTSD

Research spearheaded by MAPS includes several clinical trials that demonstrate MDMA’s potential in treating PTSD. In a 2018 Phase 2 trial published in The Lancet Psychiatry, 54% of participants no longer met the criteria for PTSD after receiving MDMA-AT, compared to just 23% in the placebo group.

A more recent Phase 3 trial (2019-2021) published in Nature Medicine showed that 67% of participants undergoing MDMA therapy no longer had PTSD by the trial’s end, compared to 32% in the placebo group. These results have made MDMA-AT one of the most promising treatments for PTSD, with long-term benefits sustained for up to 12 months post-treatment.

What Are the Risks the FDA Is Concerned About?

While MDMA shows potential, the FDA has expressed concerns regarding several risks:

  • Neurotoxicity: There are concerns about possible long-term effects on brain health, particularly serotonin depletion, which is a known risk in recreational MDMA use.
  • Cardiovascular Risk: MDMA can raise heart rate and blood pressure, creating potential dangers for individuals with cardiovascular conditions.
  • Addiction Potential: MDMA has a high potential for abuse, raising concerns about dependency in a therapeutic setting.
  • Emotional Vulnerability: While MDMA enhances emotional openness, it may also leave patients more susceptible to emotional distress, underscoring the need for highly trained therapists.

What Additional Data Does the FDA Require?

The FDA’s call for further trials is primarily focused on:

  • Long-Term Safety: The FDA wants more data on potential neurotoxicity and other long-term effects of MDMA, particularly in therapeutic settings.
  • Diverse Populations: Larger trials that include diverse patient populations with varying degrees of PTSD severity and comorbidities are needed.
  • Optimal Dosing: The FDA is exploring whether lower doses or different treatment intervals might reduce risks while maintaining therapeutic benefits.
  • Therapist Training: The FDA seeks standardized guidelines on therapist training, session protocols, and handling adverse emotional reactions.
FDA Puts MDMA for PTSD on Hold No More Psychedelic Therapy
FDA Puts MDMA for PTSD on Hold No More Psychedelic Therapy

How Do MDMA Trials Compare to Other Psychedelics?

MDMA is not the only psychedelic under study for mental health disorders. Other compounds, like psilocybin, LSD, and DMT, are also being tested for conditions such as depression and anxiety. Here’s how MDMA trials compare:

  • Psilocybin: Psilocybin has shown strong results in treating treatment-resistant depression and anxiety, with response rates similar to MDMA. Unlike MDMA, which focuses on trauma processing, psilocybin often induces mystical experiences to shift patient perspectives.
  • LSD: LSD is being studied for anxiety and depression, especially in terminally ill patients. Its longer duration (8-12 hours) can complicate therapy logistics compared to MDMA (3-5 hours), but early results are promising.
  • DMT: DMT provides intense, short-duration experiences that are being explored for treating depression and trauma-related disorders. It’s seen as a promising alternative due to its short duration, which simplifies therapy logistics.

MDMA’s primary strength lies in its ability to help patients process trauma in real time, whereas psilocybin and LSD focus more on altering consciousness to facilitate healing.

Industry Reactions: Hope and Setbacks

The FDA’s decision has sparked reactions from researchers and companies involved in psychedelic therapies. Numinus Wellness, a company focused on psychedelic-assisted therapy, expressed disappointment but remains committed to advancing research. Cybin and MindMed continue pushing forward with their own trials for psilocybin and LSD, respectively, as they explore treatments for depression and anxiety.

What’s Next for MDMA-Assisted Therapy?

While the FDA’s decision delays MDMA’s approval, it is not the end of the road. Lykos Therapeutics and MAPS plan to address the FDA’s concerns and submit new data. Researchers remain optimistic that MDMA-AT will eventually meet the FDA’s requirements and gain approval.

In the meantime, other psychedelic therapies continue to progress, with psilocybin, DMT, and LSD showing potential across multiple mental health disorders. For PTSD patients, MDMA remains a promising option, though it may take more time before the treatment becomes widely available.

Conclusion

The FDA’s decision to delay MDMA-AT for PTSD reflects its commitment to ensuring the highest standards of safety and efficacy. While this delay is a setback, it underscores the importance of thorough research in introducing powerful psychedelic therapies to the market. With additional trials and data, MDMA may still become a critical tool in treating PTSD and other trauma-related conditions.


FDA Puts MDMA for PTSD on Hold – Resources:

  1. The Lancet Psychiatry: MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 trial (2018)
  2. Nature Medicine: Phase 3 trial of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD (2021)
  3. Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS): Research and advocacy on MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD
  4. FDA Complete Response Letter: Overview of the CRL issued to Lykos Therapeutics
  5. Psychiatric Times: MDMA on hold: What’s next for psychedelics?
  6. NBC News: FDA’s stance on MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media