Search

RationalePsychedelic research continues to garner significant public and scientific interest with a growing number of clinical studies examining a wide range of conditions and disorders. However, expectancy effects and effective condition masking have been raised as critical limitations to the interpretability of the research.ObjectiveIn this article, we review the many methodological challenges of conducting psychedelic clinical trials and provide recommendations for improving the rigor of future research.ResultsAlthough some challenges are shared with psychotherapy and pharmacology trials more broadly, psychedelic clinical trials have to contend with several unique sources of potential bias. The subjective effects of a high-dose psychedelic are often so pronounced that it is difficult to mask participants to their treatment condition; the significant hype from positive media coverage on the clinical potential of psychedelics influences participants' expectations for treatment benefit; and participant unmasking and treatment expectations can interact in such a way that makes psychedelic therapy highly susceptible to large placebo and nocebo effects. Specific recommendations to increase the success of masking procedures and reduce the influence of participant expectancies are discussed in the context of study development, participant recruitment and selection, incomplete disclosure of the study design, choice of active placebo condition, as well as the measurement of participant expectations and masking efficacy.ConclusionIncorporating the recommended design elements is intended to reduce the risk of bias in psychedelic clinical trials and thereby increases the ability to discern treatment-specific effects of psychedelic therapy.

Background: In 1999, 1 year after the approval of the first oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), the first Princeton Consensus Conference was held to address the clinical management of men with ED who also had cardiovascular disease. These issues were readdressed in the second and third conferences. In the 13 years since the last Princeton Consensus Conference, the experience with PDE5 inhibitors is more robust, and recent new data have emerged regarding not only safety and drug–drug interactions, but also a potential cardioprotective effect of these drugs. Aim: In March 2023, an interdisciplinary group of scientists and practitioners met for the fourth Princeton Consensus Guidelines at the Huntington Medical Research Institutes in Pasadena, California, to readdress the cardiovascular workup of men presenting with ED as well as the approach to treatment of ED in men with known cardiovascular disease. Method: A series of lectures from experts in the field followed by Delphi-type discussions were developed to reach consensus. Outcomes: Consensus was reached regarding a number of issues related to erectile dysfunction and the interaction with cardiovascular health and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. Results: An algorithm based on recent recommendations of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, including the use of computed tomography coronary artery calcium scoring, was integrated into the evaluation of men presenting with ED. Additionally, the issue of nitrate use was further considered in an algorithm regarding the treatment of ED patients with coronary artery disease. Other topics included the psychological effect of ED and the benefits of treating it; the mechanism of action of the PDE5 inhibitors; drug–drug interactions; optimizing use of a PDE5 inhibitors; rare adverse events; potential cardiovascular benefits observed in recent retrospective studies; adulteration of dietary supplements with PDE5 inhibitors; the pros and cons of over-the-counter PDE5 inhibitors; non–PDE5 inhibitor therapy for ED including restorative therapies such as stem cells, platelet-rich plasma, and shock therapy; other non–PDE5 inhibitor therapies, including injection therapy and penile prostheses; the issue of safety and effectiveness of PDE5 inhibitors in women; and recommendations for future studies in the field of sexual dysfunction and PDE5 inhibitor use were discussed. Clinical Implications: Algorithms and tables were developed to help guide the clinician in dealing with the interaction of ED and cardiovascular risk and disease. Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the expertise of the participants and consensus recommendations. Limitations included that participants were from the United States only for this particular meeting. Conclusion: The issue of the intersection between cardiovascular health and sexual health remains an important topic with new studies suggesting the cardiovascular safety of PDE5 inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]