The potential of MDMA-assisted therapy, particularly for treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), has garnered significant attention in recent years. Our team at An Enduring Love have been closely following the trajectory of MDMA through the FDA approval process, and our therapist, Dr. Rob Colbert, was a MDMA-assisted therapist in the Phase 3 trial.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recent decision to deny approval and request an additional Phase 3 trial is immensely disappointing to all of us at An Enduring Love. This decision has sparked a wave of discussions and debates, with proponents and critics voicing their perspectives on the matter. This blog post aims to explain in simple terms the FDA's stance, explore the criticisms and lobbying efforts surrounding MDMA-assisted therapy, and discuss its potential future in the mental health landscape.
The FDA's Decision and Its Implications
The FDA's refusal to grant approval for MDMA-assisted therapy was perplexing for many. How does a drug go from “breakthrough therapy” designation in early trials to “denied approval” in later trials? The FDA’s primary concerns revolve around long-term safety, potential cardiovascular risks, and the need for further research to address potential biases in clinical trials. While this decision is a major setback for advocates, it also highlights the highly political nature of drug approval, particularly those involving Schedule I substances and a long history of recreational use.
The FDA's request for an additional Phase 3 trial signifies a considerable delay in the approval process. Optimistic estimates suggest it could take 4-5 years, while more realistic projections point towards 5-7 years, or even longer if complications arise during the trial or the subsequent FDA review. This would also require that the trial sponsors, MAPS or Lykos, raise a significant amount of money – in the tens of millions of dollars – to support these efforts.
The Advisory Committee Vote
Earlier in the year, the FDA's Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) voted against recommending approval for MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD. They voted 9-2 that clinical trials did not sufficiently prove its efficacy and 10-1 that its risks outweighed its benefits.
Critics of MDMA-assisted therapy raise various concerns, ranging from safety and efficacy to trial design limitations and potential societal implications. Safety concerns primarily focus on cardiovascular risks associated with MDMA use and the potential for abuse and dependence. Efficacy concerns revolve around the possibility of a strong placebo effect due to the unique therapeutic setting and the need for more robust trial designs to isolate the true effect of MDMA.
Trial design limitations, such as difficulties in achieving true double-blinding and small sample sizes, also contribute to the skepticism. Additionally, critics point to the potential high cost and limited accessibility of the therapy, as well as the need for extensive therapist training and regulation.
Key concerns cited included:
Validity of data: Doubts were raised about the reliability of trial data due to alleged misconduct and ethical violations.
Safety: Concerns were raised about cardiovascular effects, liver toxicity, and potential for abuse despite the therapy being generally safe and well-tolerated in trials.
Efficacy: Some committee members were not convinced that MDMA itself, rather than the accompanying psychotherapy, was responsible for the observed benefits.
Study design: Concerns were raised about functional unblinding, where participants and therapists could guess who was receiving MDMA, potentially biasing the results.
Lobbying Efforts and Advocacy
In the weeks leading up to the FDA's decision, a surge of lobbying efforts had emerged advocating for the approval of MDMA-assisted therapy. Veterans groups, MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies), and various organizations have employed tactics like congressional letters, public advocacy campaigns, and grassroots organizing to raise awareness and generate support. Their primary arguments highlight the urgent need for new PTSD treatments, the promising clinical trial data, and the potential for broader mental health benefits.
However, these efforts have also faced challenges and controversies. Some scientists and medical professionals remain cautious about the long-term safety and efficacy of MDMA-assisted therapy, advocating for further research. The historical association of MDMA with recreational use also poses challenges in overcoming stigma and misconceptions. Navigating regulatory hurdles and addressing the FDA's concerns remain central challenges in the path toward approval.
The Path Forward: A Future Outlook
Despite the current setback, the future use of MDMA-assisted therapy is not off the table. The FDA's decision, while delaying approval, has not closed the door entirely on its potential. The focus now shifts to conducting additional research to address the agency's concerns and generate more robust evidence of its safety and efficacy.
Many questions are still to be answered as MAPS and Lykos respond to the FDA’s recent decision and map out a path forward. At An Enduring Love, we are saddened by this delay and will continue to do our part in research, advocacy, and education to support a path forward for MDMA-assisted therapy and the many people who can potentially benefit from it. Join our mailing list to continue receiving notifications about advances in MDMA-assisted therapy.
Comments