Comparative oral monotherapy of psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, ayahuasca, and escitalopram for depressive symptoms: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Fu-Chi Yang, Trevor Thompson, Tien-Wei Hsu, Chih-Wei Hsu, Chih-Sung Liang, Ping-Tao Tseng, Andre F Carvalho, Yu-Kang Tu, Chia-Kuang Tsai, Yu-Chen Kao, Chia-Ling Yu

Journal: BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2024;386():e078607

PMID: 39168500

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and acceptability of oral monotherapy using psychedelics and escitalopram in patients with depressive symptoms, considering the potential for overestimated effectiveness due to unsuccessful blinding.

DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrial.gov, and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from database inception to 12 October 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials on psychedelics or escitalopram in adults with depressive symptoms. Eligible randomised controlled trials of psychedelics (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (known as MDMA), lysergic acid diethylamide (known as LSD), psilocybin, or ayahuasca) required oral monotherapy with no concomitant use of antidepressants.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The primary outcome was change in depression, measured by the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale. The secondary outcomes were all cause discontinuation and severe adverse events. Severe adverse events were those resulting in any of a list of negative health outcomes including, death, admission to hospital, significant or persistent incapacity, congenital birth defect or abnormality, and suicide attempt. Data were pooled using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. To avoid estimation bias, placebo responses were distinguished between psychedelic and antidepressant trials.

RESULTS

Placebo response in psychedelic trials was lower than that in antidepression trials of escitalopram (mean difference -3.90 (95% credible interval -7.10 to -0.96)). Although most psychedelics were better than placebo in psychedelic trials, only high dose psilocybin was better than placebo in antidepression trials of escitalopram (mean difference 6.45 (3.19 to 9.41)). However, the effect size (standardised mean difference) of high dose psilocybin decreased from large (0.88) to small (0.31) when the reference arm changed from placebo response in the psychedelic trials to antidepressant trials. The relative effect of high dose psilocybin was larger than escitalopram at 10 mg (4.66 (95% credible interval 1.36 to 7.74)) and 20 mg (4.69 (1.64 to 7.54)). None of the interventions was associated with higher all cause discontinuation or severe adverse events than the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the available psychedelic treatments for depressive symptoms, patients treated with high dose psilocybin showed better responses than those treated with placebo in the antidepressant trials, but the effect size was small.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42023469014.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Address: Department of Psychiatry, E-DA Dachang Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Department of Psychiatry, E-DA Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Department of Neurology, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical Centre, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of Psychiatry, National Defense Medical Centre, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of Psychiatry, Beitou Branch, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.; Centre for Chronic Illness and Ageing, University of Greenwich, London, UK.; IMPACT (Innovation in Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Treatment) Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.; Institute of Biomedical Sciences, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Department of Psychology, College of Medical and Health Science, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan.; Prospect Clinic for Otorhinolaryngology and Neurology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Institute of Precision Medicine, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Department of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.; Department of Pharmacy, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.; Institute of Health Data Analytics and Statistics, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of Dentistry, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of Psychiatry, National Defense Medical Centre, Taipei, Taiwan [email protected].; Department of Psychiatry, Beitou Branch, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.