Introduction Interest in the use of psychedelic substances for the treatment of mental disorders is increasing. Processes that may affect therapeutic change are not yet fully understood.... Show moreIntroduction Interest in the use of psychedelic substances for the treatment of mental disorders is increasing. Processes that may affect therapeutic change are not yet fully understood. Qualitative research methods are increasingly used to examine patient accounts; however, currently, no systematic review exists that synthesizes these findings in relation to the use of psychedelics for the treatment of mental disorders. Objective To provide an overview of salient themes in patient experiences of psychedelic treatments for mental disorders, presenting both common and diverging elements in patients' accounts, and elucidating how these affect the treatment process. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase databases for English-language qualitative literature without time limitations. Inclusion criteria were qualitative research design; peer-reviewed studies; based on verbalized patient utterances; and a level of abstraction or analysis of the results. Thematic synthesis was used to analyze and synthesize results across studies. A critical appraisal of study quality and methodological rigor was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Results Fifteen research articles, comprising 178 patient experiences, were included. Studies exhibited a broad heterogeneity in terms of substance, mental disorder, treatment context, and qualitative methodology. Substances included psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), ibogaine, ayahuasca, ketamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Disorders included anxiety, depression, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance use disorders. While the included compounds were heterogeneous in pharmacology and treatment contexts, patients reported largely comparable experiences across disorders, which included phenomenological analogous effects, perspectives on the intervention, therapeutic processes and treatment outcomes. Comparable therapeutic processes included insights, altered self-perception, increased connectedness, transcendental experiences, and an expanded emotional spectrum, which patients reported contributed to clinically and personally relevant responses. Conclusions This review demonstrates how qualitative research of psychedelic treatments can contribute to distinguishing specific features of specific substances, and carry otherwise undiscovered implications for the treatment of specific psychiatric disorders. Show less
Background Solriamfetol, a dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, improved wakefulness and reduced excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in studies of participants with narcolepsy with and... Show moreBackground Solriamfetol, a dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, improved wakefulness and reduced excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in studies of participants with narcolepsy with and without cataplexy. Objective Prespecified subgroup analyses of data from a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of solriamfetol for EDS in narcolepsy evaluated the efficacy and safety of solriamfetol by cataplexy status. Methods Participants with narcolepsy received solriamfetol (75, 150, or 300 mg/day) or placebo and were stratified by cataplexy status. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline on Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS); Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) was the key secondary endpoint. Change in frequency of cataplexy attacks was evaluated in participants reporting cataplexy at baseline. Safety was evaluated. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons; thereforepvalues are nominal. Results There were 117 participants in the cataplexy subgroup and 114 in the non-cataplexy subgroup. At week 12, least-squares (LS) mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) differences from placebo on change from baseline in MWT for solriamfetol 75, 150, and 300 mg in the cataplexy subgroup were 1.6 (- 3.6 to 6.9), 6.1 (0.7-11.4), and 8.9 (3.5-14.2) minutes, respectively (p < 0.05; 150 and 300 mg), and in the non-cataplexy subgroup were 3.4 (- 1.9 to 8.7), 9.1 (3.8-14.3), and 11.2 (5.8-16.6) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001; 150 and 300 mg). At week 12, LS mean (95% CI) differences from placebo on ESS change from baseline for solriamfetol 75, 150, and 300 mg in the cataplexy subgroup were - 1.3 (- 3.9 to 1.3), - 3.7 (- 6.4 to - 1.1), and - 4.5 (- 7.1 to - 1.9), respectively (p < 0.01; 150 and 300 mg), and in the non-cataplexy subgroup were - 3.0 (- 5.6 to - 0.4), - 3.7 (- 6.3 to - 1.2), and - 4.9 (- 7.6 to - 2.2), respectively (p < 0.05; all doses). For PGI-C at week 12, the mean percentage difference from placebo (95% CI) for solriamfetol 75, 150, and 300 mg in the cataplexy subgroup was 10% (- 15 to 35), 33% (9-57), and 39% (16-61), respectively (p < 0.05; 150 and 300 mg), and in the non-cataplexy subgroup was 48% (25-70), 44% (21-67), and 52% (30-73), respectively (p < 0.001; all doses), with somewhat differential treatment effects for 75 mg by cataplexy status. No changes in the number of cataplexy attacks were observed for solriamfetol compared with placebo (mean +/- standard deviation changes: - 3.6 +/- 13.3 [combined solriamfetol] and - 3.5 +/- 9.8 [placebo]). Common adverse events (headache, nausea, decreased appetite, and nasopharyngitis) were similar between cataplexy subgroups. Conclusions These data strongly indicate that solriamfetol was effective in treating EDS in participants with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy, as indicated by robust effects on MWT, ESS, and PGI-C. The safety profile was similar regardless of cataplexy status. Show less
Cluster headache is characterised by attacks of excruciating unilateral headache or facial pain lasting 15 min to 3 h and is seen as one of the most intense forms of pain. Cluster headache attacks... Show moreCluster headache is characterised by attacks of excruciating unilateral headache or facial pain lasting 15 min to 3 h and is seen as one of the most intense forms of pain. Cluster headache attacks are accompanied by ipsilateral autonomic symptoms such as ptosis, miosis, redness or flushing of the face, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, peri-orbital swelling and/or restlessness or agitation. Cluster headache treatment entails fast-acting abortive treatment, transitional treatment and preventive treatment. The primary goal of prophylactic and transitional treatment is to achieve attack freedom, although this is not always possible. Subcutaneous sumatriptan and high-flow oxygen are the most proven abortive treatments for cluster headache attacks, but other treatment options such as intranasal triptans may be effective. Verapamil and lithium are the preventive drugs of first choice and the most widely used in first-line preventive treatment. Given its possible cardiac side effects, electrocardiogram (ECG) is recommended before treating with verapamil. Liver and kidney functioning should be evaluated before and during treatment with lithium. If verapamil and lithium are ineffective, contraindicated or discontinued because of side effects, the second choice is topiramate. If all these drugs fail, other options with lower levels of evidence are available (e.g. melatonin, clomiphene, dihydroergotamine, pizotifen). However, since the evidence level is low, we also recommend considering one of several neuromodulatory options in patients with refractory chronic cluster headache. A new addition to the preventive treatment options in episodic cluster headache is galcanezumab, although the long-term effects remain unknown. Since effective preventive treatment can take several weeks to titrate, transitional treatment can be of great importance in the treatment of cluster headache. At present, greater occipital nerve injection is the most proven transitional treatment. Other options are high-dose prednisone or frovatriptan. Show less
