This release focuses on a recent study that found a single application of the hallucinogen psilocybin is effective at providing meaningful relief to cancer patients suffering from severe depression or anxiety. The release is exceptionally thorough, addressing benefits, potential side effects and study design in a meaningful way.
The study is one of two on the subject that were published recently in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. We also reviewed a news story by the LA Times that reported on the studies. Reviewers found that article balanced overall, but with an unsubstantiated claim that psilocybin was beneficial for conditions outside the scope of the research.
We have done three reviews related to these studies: one on a news story from the LA Times, one on a news release from NYU, and this review on the release from Johns Hopkins. And the core issues involved are similar across all three items. Cancer is a widespread health problem that affects many millions of Americans. According to the National Cancer Institute, just under 1.7 million people in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in 2016 alone. If you consider that each of those people has a family and loved ones who are also affected by the diagnosis, you can begin to appreciate the scope of the problem. According to a report from the National Institutes of Health’s 2002 State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue, “The clinical ‘rule of thumb’ is that 25 percent of cancer patients are likely depressed enough at some point in the course of disease to warrant evaluation and treatment.” Again, that depression affects not only the patients, but their loved ones. This makes it especially important for research institutions and news outlets to write responsibly about studies like those discussed in this release. You want to give readers enough information to help them make informed decisions. You don’t want to raise false hopes, or sensationalize the work. This release does a very good job of handling a delicate subject well.
Cost is not addressed at all.
The costs associated with cancer treatments has been the topic of discussion for some time. So, cost of palliative treatments are important. While there may not be any good estimates of a commercially available product at the moment, the regulatory issues associated with psilocybin are considerable and are likely to have a large impact on cost. The release could have addressed this in a general way, even if specific cost figures are not available.
This is a tricky one. The release does tell us what percentage of patients benefited from psilocybin treatment, but does not explicitly quantify the extent of those benefits — which is what this category is designed to address.
However, the release does address benefits in a meaningful way. Here’s how: First, the release makes clear that all of the study participants had received a formal psychiatric diagnosis. That tells us that they were suffering from symptoms of clinical anxiety or depression. Second, the release states that six months after the treatment “about 80 percent of participants continued to show clinically significant decreases in depressed mood and anxiety, with about 60 percent showing symptom remission into the normal range.” That language telling us that about 60 percent were in the normal range is important, because it means they were no longer exhibiting clinical anxiety or depression — and that is sufficiently meaningful to earn the release a satisfactory rating here.
The release would have been better if it had been more clear that this was a cross-over study so all participants received both the low-dose (placebo) and the full therapeutic dose in either the first or second treatment session. In addition, no comparison is given between the low-dose and high-dose therapeutic effects. Instead, the release describes benefits five weeks and six months after the second session, after all participants had received the strong dose.
The release does a good job here, stating that “15 percent of participants were nauseated or vomited, and one-third of participants experienced some psychological discomfort, such as anxiety or paranoia, after taking the higher dose. One-third of the participants had transient increases in blood pressure. A few participants reported headaches following the session.” Well done.
The release does an exceptionally good job here, laying out the study design over the course of seven paragraphs. The description of the study was both detailed and accessible to non-experts. Nicely done.
The release clearly lists the sources of funding for the research. That’s enough to earn it a satisfactory rating.
Again, the release does a good job here. For example, the release cites a lead researcher from the Johns Hopkins team saying that “traditional psychotherapy offered to people with cancer, including behavioral therapy and antidepressants, can take weeks or even months, isn’t always effective, and in the case of some drugs, such as benzodiazepines, may have addictive and other troubling side effects.” Would a more detailed comparison be valuable? Yes. Do we think the language in the release is sufficiently meaningful to merit a satisfactory rating? Also yes.
It is not clear from the release whether psilocybin treatment is currently available, or what the short- or long-term prospects are for psilocybin treatment availability.
Psylocybin is categorized as a Schedule 1 drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration and its availability is tightly controlled. There is a precautionary note in the release,”…they do not recommend use of the compound outside of such a research or patient care setting.” But given the availability of “magic mushrooms” and the availability of DIY instructions on identifying and growing same, we think that some additional comments would have been worthwhile.
The release places the work in the context of previous research from Johns Hopkins, which is enough — barely — to earn it a satisfactory rating here. What we would really like to see is how this work compares to previous research done specifically on the use of psilocybin to treat anxiety in cancer patients — such as this 2007 study, this one from 2011, or this one from 2013. We don’t necessarily expect an exhaustive comparison, but there needs to be at least some recognition that other work has been done in this field over the past 10 years.
The release refrains from bombastic language, offers meaningful detail, and is written in clear, understandable language. We particularly liked that the release states up front that this was a small, and double-blind, study. We also liked the note that “the drug was given in tightly controlled conditions in the presence of two clinically trained monitors and [researchers] said they do not recommend use of the compound outside of such a research or patient care setting.” Well done.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like