Incremental efficacy systematic review and meta-analysis of psilocybin-for-depression RCTs
- PMID: 40266291
- DOI: 10.1007/s00213-025-06788-w
Incremental efficacy systematic review and meta-analysis of psilocybin-for-depression RCTs
Erratum in
-
Correction to: Incremental efficacy systematic review and meta-analysis of psilocybin-for-depression RCTs.Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2025 May 17. doi: 10.1007/s00213-025-06818-7. Online ahead of print. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2025. PMID: 40381005 No abstract available.
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.
Keywords: Depression; Effect Size; Harm Reporting; Mechanisms of Action; Psilocybin; Psychedelics; Randomized Controlled Trial; Risk of Bias.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethical approval: This study did not involve living subjects and therefore was exempt from ethical board review Consent to participate: No consent to participate was administered as there were no living subjects. Consent to publication: All authors consent to publication. Competing interest: All authors declare no competing interests.
References
-
- American Psychiatric Association (2022) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5-TR. American Psychiatric Association - DOI
-
- Anderson T, Petranker R, Christopher A, Rosenbaum D, Weissman C, Dinh-Williams LA, Hui K, Hapke E (2019) Psychedelic microdosing benefits and challenges: An empirical codebook. Harm Reduct J 16:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12954-019-0308-4/FIGURES/3 - DOI
-
- Automeris LLC. (2024). Web Plot Digitizer. Automeris.Io. https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer.html
-
- Back AL, Freeman-Young TK, Morgan L, Sethi T, Baker KK, Myers S, McGregor BA, Harvey K, Tai M, Kollefrath A, Thomas BJ, Sorta D, Kaelen M, Kelmendi B, Gooley TA (2024) Psilocybin therapy for clinicians with symptoms of depression from frontline care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 7:e2449026. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2024.49026 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Bech P (2010) Struggle for subtypes in primary and secondary depression and their mode-specific treatment or healing. Psychother Psychosom 79:331–338. https://doi.org/10.1159/000320118 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources