经典迷幻药研究中的不良事件:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 22.5 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Jared T Hinkle, Marianna Graziosi, Sandeep M Nayak, David B Yaden
{"title":"经典迷幻药研究中的不良事件:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Jared T Hinkle, Marianna Graziosi, Sandeep M Nayak, David B Yaden","doi":"10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>A clear and comprehensive understanding of risks associated with psychedelic-assisted therapy is necessary as investigators extend its application to new populations and indications.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess adverse events (AEs) associated with classic psychedelics, particularly serious AEs (SAEs) and nonserious AEs (NSAEs) requiring medical or psychiatric evaluation.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>The search for potentially eligible studies was conducted in the Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 8, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened articles of classic psychedelics (lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine [DMT], and 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine [5-MeO-DMT]) involving administration in clinical or research contexts.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>AE data were extracted and synthesized by 2 reviewers and were used for random-effects meta-analysis of AE frequency and heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment focused on AE ascertainment (eg, systematic assessment and quality of follow-up).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>A hybrid approach was used for capture of all reported AEs following high-dose classic psychedelic exposure and confirmatory capture of AEs of special interest, including suicidality, psychotic disorder, manic symptoms, cardiovascular events, and hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. AEs were stratified by timescale and study population type. Forest plots of common AEs were generated, and the proportions of participants affected by SAEs or NSAEs requiring medical intervention were summarized descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 214 unique studies were included, of which 114 (53.3%) reported analyzable AE data for 3504 total participants. SAEs were reported for no healthy participants and for approximately 4% of participants with preexisting neuropsychiatric disorders; among these SAEs were worsening depression, suicidal behavior, psychosis, and convulsive episodes. NSAEs requiring medical intervention (eg, paranoia, headache) were similarly rare. In contemporary research settings, there were no reports of deaths by suicide, persistent psychotic disorders, or hallucinogen persisting perception disorders following administration of high-dose classic psychedelics. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the quality of AE monitoring and reporting. Of 68 analyzed studies published since 2005, only 16 (23.5%) described systematic approaches to AE assessment, and 20 studies (29.4%) reported all AEs, as opposed to only adverse drug reactions. Meta-analyses of prevalence for common AEs (eg, headache, anxiety, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness) yielded comparable results for psilocybin and LSD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, classic psychedelics were generally well tolerated in clinical or research settings according to the existing literature, although SAEs did occur. These results provide estimates of common AE frequencies and indicate that certain catastrophic events reported in recreational or nonclinical contexts have yet to be reported in contemporary trial participants. Careful, ongoing, and improved pharmacovigilance is required to understand the risk and benefit profiles of these substances and to communicate such risks to prospective study participants and the public.</p>","PeriodicalId":14800,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":22.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375525/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adverse Events in Studies of Classic Psychedelics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jared T Hinkle, Marianna Graziosi, Sandeep M Nayak, David B Yaden\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2546\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>A clear and comprehensive understanding of risks associated with psychedelic-assisted therapy is necessary as investigators extend its application to new populations and indications.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess adverse events (AEs) associated with classic psychedelics, particularly serious AEs (SAEs) and nonserious AEs (NSAEs) requiring medical or psychiatric evaluation.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>The search for potentially eligible studies was conducted in the Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 8, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Two independent reviewers screened articles of classic psychedelics (lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine [DMT], and 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine [5-MeO-DMT]) involving administration in clinical or research contexts.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>AE data were extracted and synthesized by 2 reviewers and were used for random-effects meta-analysis of AE frequency and heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment focused on AE ascertainment (eg, systematic assessment and quality of follow-up).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>A hybrid approach was used for capture of all reported AEs following high-dose classic psychedelic exposure and confirmatory capture of AEs of special interest, including suicidality, psychotic disorder, manic symptoms, cardiovascular events, and hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. AEs were stratified by timescale and study population type. Forest plots of common AEs were generated, and the proportions of participants affected by SAEs or NSAEs requiring medical intervention were summarized descriptively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 214 unique studies were included, of which 114 (53.3%) reported analyzable AE data for 3504 total participants. SAEs were reported for no healthy participants and for approximately 4% of participants with preexisting neuropsychiatric disorders; among these SAEs were worsening depression, suicidal behavior, psychosis, and convulsive episodes. NSAEs requiring medical intervention (eg, paranoia, headache) were similarly rare. In contemporary research settings, there were no reports of deaths by suicide, persistent psychotic disorders, or hallucinogen persisting perception disorders following administration of high-dose classic psychedelics. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the quality of AE monitoring and reporting. Of 68 analyzed studies published since 2005, only 16 (23.5%) described systematic approaches to AE assessment, and 20 studies (29.4%) reported all AEs, as opposed to only adverse drug reactions. Meta-analyses of prevalence for common AEs (eg, headache, anxiety, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness) yielded comparable results for psilocybin and LSD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, classic psychedelics were generally well tolerated in clinical or research settings according to the existing literature, although SAEs did occur. These results provide estimates of common AE frequencies and indicate that certain catastrophic events reported in recreational or nonclinical contexts have yet to be reported in contemporary trial participants. Careful, ongoing, and improved pharmacovigilance is required to understand the risk and benefit profiles of these substances and to communicate such risks to prospective study participants and the public.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14800,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":22.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375525/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2546\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.2546","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:随着研究人员将迷幻辅助疗法应用于新的人群和适应症,有必要清楚而全面地了解与之相关的风险:评估与经典迷幻药相关的不良事件(AEs),尤其是需要进行医疗或精神评估的严重不良事件(SAEs)和非严重不良事件(NSAEs):从开始到 2024 年 2 月 8 日,在 Scopus、MEDLINE、PsycINFO 和 Web of Science 数据库中对可能符合条件的研究进行了检索:两名独立审稿人筛选了涉及临床或研究用药的经典迷幻药(麦角酰二乙胺[LSD]、迷幻药、二甲基色胺[DMT]和 5-甲氧基-N,N-二甲基色胺[5-MeO-DMT])的文章:AE数据由两名审稿人提取和综合,并用于AE频率和异质性的随机效应荟萃分析。偏倚风险评估侧重于AE的确定(如系统评估和随访质量):主要结果和测量方法:采用混合方法采集高剂量典型迷幻药暴露后报告的所有AE,并确认采集特别关注的AE,包括自杀、精神病性障碍、躁狂症状、心血管事件和致幻剂持续感知障碍。AEs按时间尺度和研究人群类型进行了分层。生成了常见AEs的森林图,并对受SAEs或NSAEs影响而需要医疗干预的参与者比例进行了描述性总结:结果:共纳入了 214 项独特的研究,其中 114 项(53.3%)报告了 3504 名参与者的可分析 AE 数据。没有健康参试者发生 SAE,约 4% 的参试者患有原有的神经精神疾病;这些 SAE 包括抑郁症恶化、自杀行为、精神病和惊厥发作。需要医疗干预的非甾体抗炎药物不良反应(如妄想症、头痛)同样罕见。在当代研究环境中,没有关于服用大剂量经典迷幻药后出现自杀死亡、持续性精神障碍或幻觉持续感知障碍的报告。然而,在AE监测和报告的质量方面存在着明显的异质性。在 2005 年以来发表的 68 项分析研究中,只有 16 项(23.5%)介绍了系统的 AE 评估方法,20 项研究(29.4%)报告了所有 AE,而非仅报告了药物不良反应。对常见 AEs(如头痛、焦虑、恶心、疲劳和头晕)发生率的元分析结果显示,迷幻药和迷幻剂的 AEs 发生率相当:在这项系统综述和荟萃分析中,根据现有文献,经典迷幻药在临床或研究环境中的耐受性一般都很好,但也有发生 SAE 的情况。这些结果提供了常见AE频率的估计值,并表明在娱乐或非临床环境中报告的某些灾难性事件尚未在当代试验参与者中报告。要了解这些物质的风险和益处,并将这些风险传达给未来的研究参与者和公众,就需要进行仔细、持续和改进的药物警戒。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adverse Events in Studies of Classic Psychedelics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: A clear and comprehensive understanding of risks associated with psychedelic-assisted therapy is necessary as investigators extend its application to new populations and indications.

Objective: To assess adverse events (AEs) associated with classic psychedelics, particularly serious AEs (SAEs) and nonserious AEs (NSAEs) requiring medical or psychiatric evaluation.

Data sources: The search for potentially eligible studies was conducted in the Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 8, 2024.

Study selection: Two independent reviewers screened articles of classic psychedelics (lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], psilocybin, dimethyltryptamine [DMT], and 5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine [5-MeO-DMT]) involving administration in clinical or research contexts.

Data extraction and synthesis: AE data were extracted and synthesized by 2 reviewers and were used for random-effects meta-analysis of AE frequency and heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment focused on AE ascertainment (eg, systematic assessment and quality of follow-up).

Main outcomes and measures: A hybrid approach was used for capture of all reported AEs following high-dose classic psychedelic exposure and confirmatory capture of AEs of special interest, including suicidality, psychotic disorder, manic symptoms, cardiovascular events, and hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. AEs were stratified by timescale and study population type. Forest plots of common AEs were generated, and the proportions of participants affected by SAEs or NSAEs requiring medical intervention were summarized descriptively.

Results: A total of 214 unique studies were included, of which 114 (53.3%) reported analyzable AE data for 3504 total participants. SAEs were reported for no healthy participants and for approximately 4% of participants with preexisting neuropsychiatric disorders; among these SAEs were worsening depression, suicidal behavior, psychosis, and convulsive episodes. NSAEs requiring medical intervention (eg, paranoia, headache) were similarly rare. In contemporary research settings, there were no reports of deaths by suicide, persistent psychotic disorders, or hallucinogen persisting perception disorders following administration of high-dose classic psychedelics. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the quality of AE monitoring and reporting. Of 68 analyzed studies published since 2005, only 16 (23.5%) described systematic approaches to AE assessment, and 20 studies (29.4%) reported all AEs, as opposed to only adverse drug reactions. Meta-analyses of prevalence for common AEs (eg, headache, anxiety, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness) yielded comparable results for psilocybin and LSD.

Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, classic psychedelics were generally well tolerated in clinical or research settings according to the existing literature, although SAEs did occur. These results provide estimates of common AE frequencies and indicate that certain catastrophic events reported in recreational or nonclinical contexts have yet to be reported in contemporary trial participants. Careful, ongoing, and improved pharmacovigilance is required to understand the risk and benefit profiles of these substances and to communicate such risks to prospective study participants and the public.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Psychiatry
JAMA Psychiatry PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
30.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
233
期刊介绍: JAMA Psychiatry is a global, peer-reviewed journal catering to clinicians, scholars, and research scientists in psychiatry, mental health, behavioral science, and related fields. The Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry originated in 1919, splitting into two journals in 1959: Archives of Neurology and Archives of General Psychiatry. In 2013, these evolved into JAMA Neurology and JAMA Psychiatry, respectively. JAMA Psychiatry is affiliated with the JAMA Network, a group of peer-reviewed medical and specialty publications.
×
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