Nicholas C Borgogna, Tyler Owen, Dan Petrovitch, Jacob Vaughn, David A L Johnson, Louis A Pagano, Stephen L Aita, Benjamin D Hill
{"title":"Incremental efficacy systematic review and meta-analysis of psilocybin-for-depression RCTs.","authors":"Nicholas C Borgogna, Tyler Owen, Dan Petrovitch, Jacob Vaughn, David A L Johnson, Louis A Pagano, Stephen L Aita, Benjamin D Hill","doi":"10.1007/s00213-025-06788-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Psilocybin is a potentially paradigm-shifting depression intervention. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psilocybin-for-depression randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Systematically assess harm reporting, risk of bias, action mechanism specification, and incremental therapeutic effect sizes in the psilocybin-for-depression RCT literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Assessed databases included PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Search terms \"Psilocybin\" or \"Psychedelic\" were paired with \"Depression\", and \"Randomized Controlled Trial\" or \"RCT\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified k = 9 RCTs (k = 10 subgroups) involving n = 602 participants (56% psilocybin). Five studies had low/very low harm quality reporting, opposed to two with high. Most studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. Therapeutic mechanisms of action (MoAs) were discussed in varying detail but rarely assessed in original publications. Psilocybin was moderately superior to controls at reducing depression (g = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.27, 0.98). Effects were heterogenous (τ = .47). Smaller studies evidenced stronger effects that favored psilocybin (Egger's b0 = 3.63, p = .014). Almost all studies documented financial conflicts of interests.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Psilocybin demonstrates significant depression reduction relative to controls. However, researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders should consider several contextual factors. Effects were moderate and attenuated in larger and better-controlled studies. Harms reporting and risk of bias was high, though partly driven by unique challenges of psilocybin research. MoAs were variably specified but rarely assessed; suggesting it is unclear how depression is reduced. We advise researchers conduct RCTs with active control conditions, larger samples, and include MoA assessments. Independent RCTs from researchers without financial conflicts of interest are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":20783,"journal":{"name":"Psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-025-06788-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale: Psilocybin is a potentially paradigm-shifting depression intervention. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psilocybin-for-depression randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Objectives: Systematically assess harm reporting, risk of bias, action mechanism specification, and incremental therapeutic effect sizes in the psilocybin-for-depression RCT literature.
Methods: Assessed databases included PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus. Search terms "Psilocybin" or "Psychedelic" were paired with "Depression", and "Randomized Controlled Trial" or "RCT".
Results: We identified k = 9 RCTs (k = 10 subgroups) involving n = 602 participants (56% psilocybin). Five studies had low/very low harm quality reporting, opposed to two with high. Most studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. Therapeutic mechanisms of action (MoAs) were discussed in varying detail but rarely assessed in original publications. Psilocybin was moderately superior to controls at reducing depression (g = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.27, 0.98). Effects were heterogenous (τ = .47). Smaller studies evidenced stronger effects that favored psilocybin (Egger's b0 = 3.63, p = .014). Almost all studies documented financial conflicts of interests.
Conclusion: Psilocybin demonstrates significant depression reduction relative to controls. However, researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders should consider several contextual factors. Effects were moderate and attenuated in larger and better-controlled studies. Harms reporting and risk of bias was high, though partly driven by unique challenges of psilocybin research. MoAs were variably specified but rarely assessed; suggesting it is unclear how depression is reduced. We advise researchers conduct RCTs with active control conditions, larger samples, and include MoA assessments. Independent RCTs from researchers without financial conflicts of interest are needed.
期刊介绍：
Official Journal of the European Behavioural Pharmacology Society (EBPS)
Psychopharmacology is an international journal that covers the broad topic of elucidating mechanisms by which drugs affect behavior. The scope of the journal encompasses the following fields:
Human Psychopharmacology: Experimental
This section includes manuscripts describing the effects of drugs on mood, behavior, cognition and physiology in humans. The journal encourages submissions that involve brain imaging, genetics, neuroendocrinology, and developmental topics. Usually manuscripts in this section describe studies conducted under controlled conditions, but occasionally descriptive or observational studies are also considered.
Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Translational
This section comprises studies addressing the broad intersection of drugs and psychiatric illness. This includes not only clinical trials and studies of drug usage and metabolism, drug surveillance, and pharmacoepidemiology, but also work utilizing the entire range of clinically relevant methodologies, including neuroimaging, pharmacogenetics, cognitive science, biomarkers, and others. Work directed toward the translation of preclinical to clinical knowledge is especially encouraged. The key feature of submissions to this section is that they involve a focus on clinical aspects.
Preclinical psychopharmacology: Behavioral and Neural
This section considers reports on the effects of compounds with defined chemical structures on any aspect of behavior, in particular when correlated with neurochemical effects, in species other than humans. Manuscripts containing neuroscientific techniques in combination with behavior are welcome. We encourage reports of studies that provide insight into the mechanisms of drug action, at the behavioral and molecular levels.
Preclinical Psychopharmacology: Translational
This section considers manuscripts that enhance the confidence in a central mechanism that could be of therapeutic value for psychiatric or neurological patients, using disease-relevant preclinical models and tests, or that report on preclinical manipulations and challenges that have the potential to be translated to the clinic. Studies aiming at the refinement of preclinical models based upon clinical findings (back-translation) will also be considered. The journal particularly encourages submissions that integrate measures of target tissue exposure, activity on the molecular target and/or modulation of the targeted biochemical pathways.
Preclinical Psychopharmacology: Molecular, Genetic and Epigenetic
This section focuses on the molecular and cellular actions of neuropharmacological agents / drugs, and the identification / validation of drug targets affecting the CNS in health and disease. We particularly encourage studies that provide insight into the mechanisms of drug action at the molecular level. Manuscripts containing evidence for genetic or epigenetic effects on neurochemistry or behavior are welcome.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
