May 4, 2018 Read Original Story

Thank you, New York Times, for asking ‘Who is behind these studies? Where does the money come from?’

Reviewed By

Rating

Ecstasy as PTSD Relief for Soldiers: ‘I Was Able to Forgive Myself’

Our Review Summary

The study highlighted in this well-written article adds to a growing body of research into whether using the synthetic, psychoactive drug MDMA (street names “Ecstasy” or “Molly”) in conjunction with psychotherapy, can improve outcomes in PTSD.

The article makes effective use of a question-and-answer format to discuss previous research in this area, the risk that such research might encourage DIY treatments, as well as the potential harms and benefits of an approach that’s recently been granted breakthrough therapy status by the FDA.

Of note, we thought the issue of funding — usually ignored in about 70% of the stories we review — was handled in a very comprehensive and compelling way.

Why This Matters

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates the lifetime prevalence of PTSD to be about 7%. The duration and severity can vary widely, and successful treatment is a challenge.

MDMA and psychotherapy to treat PTSD is just one example of an emerging area in psychiatry: Using non-FDA-approved psychoactive drugs (including LSD or hallucinogenic mushrooms), in conjunction with therapy, to treat everything from chronic pain to major depression.

It’s a paradigm shift, to say the least, which means this type of research will undoubtedly generate substantial news coverage. Exercising caution and restraint — as this New York Times article did — will likely be more the exception than the rule.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The cost of MDMA is not mentioned, and likely difficult to forecast.

However, the associated therapy is fairly intensive, and it remains to be seen if it would be covered by insurance. Still, a discussion of these potentially significant costs would have been relevant and helpful, even if the story admits they’re largely unknown.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

We’re told that after two sessions of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy …

… a majority of 26 combat veterans and first-responders with chronic PTSD (who had not been helped by traditional methods) saw dramatic decreases in symptoms. The improvements were so dramatic that 68 percent of the patients no longer met the criteria for PTSD. Patients taking the drug also experienced “drastic” improvements in sleep and become more conscientious, according to the study.

This is enough to rate Satisfactory, but we think the story needed more details on how the study was designed to help readers understand this result (see evidence quality, below).

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The article states:

Side effects including anxiety, headache, fatigue, muscle tension, and insomnia, were generally minor and limited to the days following the MDMA sessions.

Readers might have concerns regarding the long-term consequences of pharmaceutical grade MDMA, but this is unknown. The article does make it clear that the MDMA-assisted psychotherapy model used in the study only involves taking the drug on 2-3 occasions.

Also, the article anticipates that some people may (and already do) turn to street sources of MDMA (aka “Ecstasy” or “Molly”) to self medicate. It’s made clear that this could could be dangerous, or even fatal, since street sources can be laced with other psychoactive drugs.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

In an otherwise comprehensive article, there’s room for improvement here.

We’re told a limited amount about the study design; in particular the questionnaire (called “CAPS-IV”) used to measure response in this small group of people. So we have little context with which to understand this outcome: Roughly 2 out of 3 subjects no longer meeting the criteria for PTSD.

Also, there’s the issue of the reliability and reproducibility of questionnaires that rely upon the self-reporting of symptoms.

Having said that, the article does well to ask: But does it actually work?

Large-scale trials, which will include up to 300 participants at 14 sites, may not be able to replicate the success of previous trials, which were limited to a few dozen patients.

Lastly, in an editorial that ran in the same issue of the Lancet, the editorialists also make the point that the participants were recruited via the internet and word of mouth, potentially skewing towards those “keen” on trying ecstasy.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Satisfactory

None. PTSD is fairly common and moderate to severe cases often prove difficult to treat.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

The unique funding for this project, as well as “who cashes in if MDMA becomes legal” is thoroughly covered and a very nice addition to the article.

The lead authors appear to have no financial conflicts of interest, and multiple sources were tapped.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Satisfactory

The answer is revealing; essentially current interventions — mostly psychotherapy and/or drugs — have been mostly ineffective.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

It’s made clear that MDMA “is about to enter larger Phase III trials,” the FDA has granted pharmaceutical grade MDMA breakthrough therapy status, and that illegal sources exist but are potentially dangerous.

It’s also mentioned that there have already been several other small-scale studies of the drug, and that if MDMA is eventually approved by the FDA it will only be administered by a licensed therapist.

We did have one quibble–the story predicts that, if larger studies go well, the drug could be approved for this use “by 2021.” In reality, there’s really no way of knowing what year a drug will get approved.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Satisfactory

In the section “Is MDMA therapy new?” we learn that MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has been both formally, and informally, used in the past.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story did not rely on the news release.

Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory

Comments (1)

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Shawn 'AMKR' Dickinson

May 11, 2018 at 1:08 am

I must say as someone with cPTSD (Complex PTSD) an occasional psychedelic (lsd, mdma, mescaline, DMT, mushrooms, medical marijuana” trip (only when I feel it’s needed with mediation and yoga, it is like ten years of therapy to me, but to each there own. – everyone’s physiology is different!

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.

Getty Images