Prospective Preference Assessment for the Psilocybin for Enhanced Analgesia in Chronic nEuropathic PAIN (PEACE-PAIN) Trial.

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jiwon Lee, Kaylyssa Philip, Duminda N Wijeysundera, Hance Clarke, Cheryl Pritlove, Joel Katz, Paul Ritvo, Akash Goel, Muhammad Ishrat Husain, Karim S Ladha
{"title":"Prospective Preference Assessment for the Psilocybin for Enhanced Analgesia in Chronic nEuropathic PAIN (PEACE-PAIN) Trial.","authors":"Jiwon Lee, Kaylyssa Philip, Duminda N Wijeysundera, Hance Clarke, Cheryl Pritlove, Joel Katz, Paul Ritvo, Akash Goel, Muhammad Ishrat Husain, Karim S Ladha","doi":"10.1080/24740527.2024.2406285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Negative perceptions of psilocybin and challenges of participant enrollment may represent barriers to conducting a randomized controlled trial examining psilocybin for chronic neuropathic pain.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Prior to trial initiation, we aimed to examine patient attitudes toward the trial via a prospective preference assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-six patients with chronic neuropathic pain participated in a prospective preference assessment comprising quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) components. Content analysis was used to inductively and deductively identify factors that would motivate or discourage participation in the proposed trial. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and perceptions of psilocybin were collected to explore differences in characteristics between patients who were willing and unwilling to participate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey results showed that most participants (76.9%) were willing to participate in the PEACE-PAIN trial. \"Willing\" participants reported higher prior psychedelic use (75%) as compared to the \"maybe willing\" (0%) and \"not willing\" participants (0%). Interviews indicated that the top two factors that motivated participation included the need for new treatment options (31.7%) and benefits to personal pain management (31.7%). The top two discouraging factors included practical difficulties of research participation (16.7%), and adverse events associated with psilocybin (16.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PEACE-PAIN trial study design is supported by patient survey responses but may benefit from modifications, namely incorporating thorough discussions of the current evidence for efficacy, safety, tolerability, and approaches to address adverse effects of psilocybin. Additionally, the interest in participation by individuals with prior psychedelic use holds important methodological implications for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":53214,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","volume":"8 1","pages":"2406285"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552286/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2024.2406285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Negative perceptions of psilocybin and challenges of participant enrollment may represent barriers to conducting a randomized controlled trial examining psilocybin for chronic neuropathic pain.

Aim: Prior to trial initiation, we aimed to examine patient attitudes toward the trial via a prospective preference assessment.

Methods: Twenty-six patients with chronic neuropathic pain participated in a prospective preference assessment comprising quantitative (survey) and qualitative (interview) components. Content analysis was used to inductively and deductively identify factors that would motivate or discourage participation in the proposed trial. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and perceptions of psilocybin were collected to explore differences in characteristics between patients who were willing and unwilling to participate.

Results: Survey results showed that most participants (76.9%) were willing to participate in the PEACE-PAIN trial. "Willing" participants reported higher prior psychedelic use (75%) as compared to the "maybe willing" (0%) and "not willing" participants (0%). Interviews indicated that the top two factors that motivated participation included the need for new treatment options (31.7%) and benefits to personal pain management (31.7%). The top two discouraging factors included practical difficulties of research participation (16.7%), and adverse events associated with psilocybin (16.7%).

Conclusions: The PEACE-PAIN trial study design is supported by patient survey responses but may benefit from modifications, namely incorporating thorough discussions of the current evidence for efficacy, safety, tolerability, and approaches to address adverse effects of psilocybin. Additionally, the interest in participation by individuals with prior psychedelic use holds important methodological implications for the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the trial.

用于增强慢性神经痛镇痛效果的迷幻药(PEACE-PAIN)试验的前瞻性偏好评估。
背景:目的:在试验开始之前,我们旨在通过前瞻性偏好评估考察患者对试验的态度:26名慢性神经病理性疼痛患者参加了由定量(调查)和定性(访谈)两部分组成的前瞻性偏好评估。内容分析法用于归纳和演绎确定激励或阻碍参与拟议试验的因素。此外,还收集了人口统计学、临床特征和对迷幻剂的看法,以探讨愿意和不愿意参与试验的患者之间的特征差异:调查结果显示,大多数参与者(76.9%)愿意参加 PEACE-PAIN 试验。与 "可能愿意"(0%)和 "不愿意"(0%)的参与者相比,"愿意 "的参与者表示以前使用过更多的迷幻药(75%)。访谈显示,促使参与者参与的前两个因素包括对新治疗方案的需求(31.7%)和对个人疼痛治疗的益处(31.7%)。前两个阻碍因素包括参与研究的实际困难(16.7%)和与迷幻药相关的不良事件(16.7%):结论:PEACE-PAIN 试验的研究设计得到了患者调查反馈的支持,但可能需要进行修改,即对目前的疗效、安全性、耐受性以及应对迷幻药不良反应的方法进行全面讨论。此外,曾使用过迷幻药的患者对参与试验的兴趣也对试验的纳入/排除标准产生了重要的方法论影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信