The therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs: past, present, and future
This review (2017) looks at the potential of psychedelics to be used in treatment of mental disorders, with a focus on psilocybin for depression.
Authors
- Robin Carhart-Harris
- Guy Goodwin
Published
Abstract
Plant-based psychedelics, such as psilocybin, have an ancient history of medicinal use. After the first English language report on LSD in 1950, psychedelics enjoyed a short-lived relationship with psychology and psychiatry. Used most notably as aids to psychotherapy for the treatment of mood disorders and alcohol dependence, drugs such as LSD showed initial therapeutic promise before prohibitive legislature in the mid-1960s effectively ended all major psychedelic research programs. Since the early 1990s, there has been a steady revival of human psychedelic research: last year saw reports on the first modern brain imaging study with LSD and three separate clinical trials of psilocybin for depressive symptoms. In this circumspective piece, RLC-H and GMG share their opinions on the promises and pitfalls of renewed psychedelic research, with a focus on the development of psilocybin as a treatment for depression.
Research Summary of 'The therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs: past, present, and future'
βBlossom's Take
Introduction
Psychedelic compounds such as psilocybin and LSD have a long history of medicinal and ritual use, and they were widely investigated by psychiatrists and psychologists from the 1950s until prohibitive legislation in the mid-1960s halted much formal research. After a roughly 25-year hiatus, human research into psychedelics resumed in the early 1990s and has since produced neuroimaging, psychopharmacology, and early-phase clinical studies. These contemporary reports include small trials of psilocybin and LSD for conditions such as obsessive–compulsive disorder, addiction, end-of-life distress, and major depressive disorder, together with modern brain-imaging work. This paper is a circumspective commentary in which Carhart-Harris and Goodwin set out contrasting but convergent perspectives on the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, with particular attention to developing psilocybin as a treatment for depression. Carhart-Harris offers a cautiously optimistic account emphasising potential advantages over conventional antidepressants, while Goodwin provides a more sceptical appraisal focused on patient selection, trial design, and evidential limitations. The authors jointly discuss the current evidence base, mechanisms of action, methodological challenges, and recommendations for future clinical development.
Methods
The extracted text does not describe a formal methods section because the paper is a narrative, opinion-led review rather than a systematic review or original empirical study. Instead, the article synthesises historical material and recent human research findings and presents two authored viewpoints: a ‘tempered optimism’ by Carhart-Harris and an ‘upbeat pessimism’ by Goodwin, followed by a joint discussion on how to advance the field. Evidence drawn into the commentary includes early mid-twentieth-century case series and non-randomised studies, later meta-analyses of historical trials (for example, studies from 1949–1973 and LSD trials for alcoholism), modern double-blind randomised controlled work in healthy volunteers (a 2006 DB-RC comparing high-dose psilocybin and methylphenidate), recent small clinical trials in various patient groups, and neuropharmacological and neuroimaging findings relating to serotonergic receptor action. The authors also critique design features of specific contemporary trials—most notably two crossover trials of psilocybin in cancer patients—and draw on trial outcomes, sample characteristics (including rates of prior hallucinogen use), and methodological problems such as blinding, outcome measurement, and medication interactions to formulate recommendations for future trials.
Results
The narrative review highlights several strands of empirical evidence and methodological observations from past and recent studies. Early uncontrolled work reported large apparent benefits: a meta-analysis of 19 studies conducted between 1949 and 1973 found that 79% of patients showed a clinically judged improvement after psychedelic-assisted treatment, and separate meta-analytic work from the 1950s–60s supported LSD's potential for alcoholism. These historical studies lacked standardised diagnostics, severity measures, randomisation, and controls. Modern controlled studies are smaller but more rigorous. A 2006 double-blind randomised controlled trial in healthy volunteers found greater improvements in psychological wellbeing at two months after a single 30 mg dose of psilocybin compared with 40 mg methylphenidate; more than half of those receiving psilocybin rated the experience among the most personally meaningful of their lives. Early-phase clinical trials have reported outcomes consistent with potential efficacy for conditions including obsessive–compulsive disorder, end-of-life psychological distress, alcohol and tobacco dependence, and major depressive disorder, but most of these trials have small sample sizes and were primarily designed to assess safety and tolerability rather than definitive efficacy. The two independently conducted crossover trials in cancer-related distress warrant particular scrutiny. Both compared low-dose or active placebo conditions with high-dose psilocybin and reported marked acute subjective effects on the high dose, including anxiety, tearfulness and occasional paranoid ideation. Blinding was likely compromised because the high-dose effects are florid and obvious to participants; this creates the possibility of demand characteristics influencing subjective outcomes and third-party reports. In one trial, prior recreational hallucinogen use among participants was high (reported as 55%), raising concerns about sample representativeness and expectation bias. Other empirical and practical points reported include: SSRIs and other antidepressants that downregulate 5-HT2A receptors may attenuate psilocybin's acute and putative therapeutic effects, implying medication washout may be necessary; psilocybin's pharmacology contrasts with SSRIs (psychedelics act as 5-HT2A agonists and tend to heighten emotional sensitivity, whereas SSRIs affect post-synaptic 5-HT1A signalling and often blunt emotional responsiveness); and objective outcome measures (for example, passive geolocation or activity monitoring) might complement subjective symptom ratings and reduce bias in future trials. Suggestions for trial design emerging from the synthesis include a multiple-dose randomised trial (for example 1 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg) to provide an active low-dose comparator and to reduce the ethical and recruitment difficulties of a true inert placebo. Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is proposed as a logical initial clinical indication for more definitive trials, though Carhart-Harris advocates evaluation earlier in the illness course as well. Comparative trials versus other rapid-acting agents such as ketamine, investigation of dose and psychological support components, and economic evaluations of cost-effectiveness are further priorities noted by the authors.
Discussion
Carhart-Harris interprets the accumulated evidence with cautious optimism, arguing that psilocybin—combined with psychological support—may become an early and clinically valuable option for depression. He emphasises putative advantages such as rapidity and durability of effect, minimal dosing burden, a favourable side-effect profile, and an approach that may work by processing rather than suppressing aversive memories and emotions. Carhart-Harris also highlights the importance of the acute psychedelic experience, noting that aspects of that experience have been predictive of longer-term outcomes in some studies. Goodwin offers a more reserved perspective, stressing methodological and practical challenges that temper enthusiasm. He questions whether certain patient groups studied to date, such as cancer patients with existential distress, represent a clear unmet need or are prone to selection biases (for example, high prior hallucinogen use and an intrinsic interest in psychedelic experiences). He also emphasises problems with crossover designs and the difficulty of maintaining blinding when active doses produce unmistakable subjective effects, which in turn raises the risk of demand characteristics affecting self- and third-party-reported outcomes. Goodwin recommends greater use of objective outcome measures where feasible and careful attention to trial populations and endpoints. Both authors agree on several core points for future research. High-quality randomised trials are required, with careful consideration of patient selection (TRD is viewed as a sensible starting point), medication washout procedures because SSRIs may blunt psilocybin effects, and the need to define the role and extent of psychological support. They propose pragmatic designs such as dose-ranging arms (1 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg) to provide an active low-dose comparator and to reduce placebo-related recruitment problems, and suggest comparative studies against other rapid-acting interventions like ketamine. The investigators also acknowledge limitations in the existing literature—small sample sizes, subjective outcome measures, potential unblinding, sample representativeness issues, and interactions with ongoing psychotropic medication—and call for economic analyses to assess cost-effectiveness given the resource implications of supervised psychedelic-assisted sessions. Overall, the authors position psychedelics as a promising but still early-stage therapeutic avenue that requires rigorous clinical trials, methodological care, and regulatory engagement before its true therapeutic value and implementation parameters can be established.
View full paper sections
THE PRESENT REVIVAL
Human psychedelic research fell into a 25-year hiatus before scientists in Germany, the United States, and Switzerland) began its revival. There now exists a foundation of human neuroimaging, and psychopharmacology studies with psychedelics. These foundational studies complement a small number of early phase clinical trials (Table). There are now positive preliminary reports on the safety and tolerability of psilocybin for obsessive compulsive disorder, psilocybin, and LSD for end-of-life psychological distress, psilocybin for alcohol, and tobacco addictionand ayahuascaand psilocybin for major depressive disorder. An important caveat here, is that many of these trials report on small sample sizes and would best be described as 'safety and tolerability' studies by conventional standards, and while all of them do report outcomes consistent with potential efficacy, most have not been appropriately designed to demonstrate it conclusively. GMG critically discusses two of the largest and better designed trials in the next section.
PSYCHEDELICS FOR MENTAL ILLNESS
Plant-based psychedelics have been used for hundreds if not thousands of years for holistic healingand there remains an active culture of self-medication with psychedelics for mental health. Contrary to the alarmist campaigning that so negatively affected perceptions of psychedelics after the 1960s, subjective, naturalistic/ observational, and population-based dataindicate a positive association between psychedelic drug use and mental health, albeit with some important caveats, which will be discussed below. Progressing to more controlled medical use, psychedelics piqued the interest of psychologists and psychiatrists in the 1950s, who noted early on that they may 'serve as new tools for shortening psychotherapy'. A recent meta-analysis of 19 studies of psychedelics for mood disorders published between 1949 and 1973 found that 79% of patients showed 'clinically judged improvement' post treatment. Moreover, a meta-analysis of studies of LSD for alcoholism performed in the 50-60s was similarly supportive of its potential. The absence of standardized diagnostic techniques, measures of symptom severity, and lack of randomization and control conditions in these studies needs to be properly heeded, but equally, it would be self-defeating to dismiss their findings outright. The modern era of controlled research with psychedelics has seen the adoption of more careful experimental designs, together with a more critical approach to outcomes. In 2006, a double-blind randomized controlled (DB-RC) study compared the acute and longer-term psychological effects of single high doses of psilocybin (30 mg) and methylphenidate (40 mg) in healthy volunteers. Significantly, greater improvements in psychological well-being were observed after psilocybin than methylphenidate at the 2-month end point and more than half considered their psilocybin experience to be among the most personally meaningful experiences of their lives. Since then, the focus has shifted to include patients with symptoms ofSandoz stop manufacture of LSD and psilocybinProhibition of psychedelics and curtailment of research begins in US; Senator Robert Kennedy formally questions this moveTimothy Leary declares 'turn on, tune in and drop out' at festival in Golden Gate ParkPresident Nixon signs Controlled Substances Act, LSD and psilocybin made Schedule 1Abbreviations: ACNP, American College of Neuropsychopharmacology; JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association; NIMH, National Institute of Mental Health. The therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs RL Carhart-Harris and GM Goodwin Focusing on antidepressant action, psilocybin, and psychedelics more generally, share some similarities with conventional antidepressants (ie, serotonergic modulation); however, they also possess some important differences. Regarding similarities, an altered relationship with the environment may be critical to recovery with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitorsand heightened sensitivity to the environment is a cardinal feature of the psychedelic state, perhaps due to psychedelics' direct agonist action at the 5-HT2AR. Regarding differences, the chronic antidepressant action of SSRIs includes reduced limbic responsiveness and emotional moderation or blunting, likely via post-synaptic 5-HT1A receptor signaling; this contrasts with the greater role for 5-HT2AR signaling with psychedelics, and emphasis on emotional release (Carhart-Harris et al, 2012b;. Contrasting approaches to emotion may be a fundamental difference between the SSRI and psychedelic treatment models (Figure). In my opinion, if the science is allowed to progress without the kind of political interference that has hindered it in the past, psilocybin with psychological support (PwPS) will become an early option in the treatment of depression. I predict that PwPS will be found to have important areas of superiority over current early interventions such as SSRIs and CBT. Specifically, PwPS's rapid and enduring action with minimal exposure, positive side-effect profile, and specific therapeutic action-working to address rather than suppress or side-step aversive memories and emotions, may set it apart from the alternative, largely 'palliative' treatment options for major depression. "That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer."Another consideration is that chronic antidepressant medication strategies appear to have a muting effect on psilocybin's acute and putative antidepressant effects, implying that treating medication-heavy, treatment-resistant depressed patients with psilocybin will be especially challenging. Medication discontinuation would likely be required prior to receipt of the psychedelic and this often requires careful management.
THE THERAPEUTIC POTENTIAL OF PSYCHEDELIC DRUGS: UPBEAT PESSIMISM (GMG)
"What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped to create... a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody, or at least some force, is tending the Light at the end of the tunnel." (Hunter S Thompson. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, 1971) FigureA bipartite model of serotonergic functioning focused on the effects of post-synaptic 5-HT1AR and 5-HT2AR signaling. The more pronounced effects of chronically used SSRIs on post-synaptic 5-HT1AR signaling is hypothesized to relate to their anti-stress, pro-coping properties but also their tendency to moderate or 'blunt' emotional responsiveness. The direct 5-HT2AR agonist properties of psychedelics are hypothesized to relate to their proclivity to enhance sensitivity to the environment as well as facilitate emotional release, which, when combined with psychological support, is hypothesized to be therapeutically potent. The therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs
FINDING SIGNAL AMIDST THE PSYCHEDELIC NOISE
As a clinician long committed to the view that neuroscience should inform psychiatry, psychedelics have always looked like a serious opportunity. Their structure and pharmacology inspired a generation of neurochemists to understand neurotransmitters and their receptors. And, the very idea that drugs could usefully change the experience of distressed patients with psychiatric disorders underpinned the revolution in psychopharmacology in the three decades from 1950. However, the 'illegal' status of psychedelics stopped serious research in humans until quite recently, as RLC-H has explained. So, can psychedelics take us back to the future? I understand the appeal that RLC-H feels for their potential. However, the difficulty in finding a medical role for psilocybin must not be underestimated. It is worth reflecting on what we have learned from the very recently published clinical trials. Their strengths and their weaknesses define the challenge. As for the strengths, when two very similarly designed but independent studies of the effects of any pharmacological agent give the same result, it is encouraging. Accordingly, the two studies in patients with cancer experiencing enduring psychiatric symptoms and given psilocybin or a comparatordeserve to be taken seriously. However, there have to be caveats. Are we confident that we understand the patient population? Did the trial design allow a clear question to be asked and were the outcomes meaningful?
THE PATIENT POPULATION
In the choice of patient group, why cancer patients?suggested that a domain of distress they call existential/spiritual well being is particularly relevant to depression in cancer while Griffith et al (2016) emphasize that evidence for efficacy of conventional medication or psychotherapy is poor or even negative. Symptoms of both depression and anxiety are relatively common in cancer patients. But, they are often not very severe and in fact patients may choose not to seek help in their treatment. In a case series of 128 patients attending for their first session of chemotherapy for cancer, only about 20% indicated they would appreciate psychological help for distress, depression, or anxiety. Of these, most indicated they would appreciate the opportunity to speak to someone-but only one suggested a psychiatrist. Significant depressive symptoms can occur in cancer patients of course and active screening of a large consecutive cohort suggested about 8% met criteria for a major depressive episode) and many are not offered treatment. A subsequent trial in 200 such patients was conducted to compare a nurse intervention (which included antidepressant medication as an option and problem solving) with treatment as usual. There was a clinically significant and sustained impact of intervention on depressive symptoms (and on anxiety and fatigue): 68% of the treated group achieved remission compared with 45% of the comparator group (odds ratio 3 (confidence interval: 1.6-5.5). Thus, the case for a particular unmet need in cancer patients is actually quite difficult to sustain. The idea that cancer diagnosis poses a particular threat to existential/ spiritual well-being in some patients may be correct but there is a risk that one recruits into trials people with a particular interest in psychedelic experience, who are hence predisposed to endorse its benefits. They may not be representative of cancer patients in general. In the published study where it The therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs is reported, the rate of previous use of hallucinogens was indeed high (55% in the.
THE TRIAL DESIGN
In each of the two cancer studies, the design was a crossover, which compared, respectively, low-dose/high-dose psilocybin and niacin (placebo)/high-dose psilocybin. The subjective effects of the high dose consisted in heightened states of consciousness with marked emotional accompaniments (anxiety, tearfulness, and in a few cases, paranoid ideation). These effects were as expected, given the previous literature. It is difficult to see how blinding can be maintained because the subjective effects of drug were so florid. There was some uncertainty in the ratings by support staff, who supervised the sessions blind to dosing. However, overall one must assume the patients were usually unblinded by their experience on active drug. If so, it provided the kind of cue called a demand characteristic. That is anything that makes participants in an experimental study aware of what the experimenter expects to find or how participants are expected to behave. Such issues would also be difficult to avoid in judging outcomes, without great care in preserving raters to be blind.
THE OUTCOME MEASURES
The outcome measures of both trials are self, community, and clinician reports. Thus, they are entirely subjective, as most studies of antidepressants and anxiolytics have been. The demand problem has been noted already for patients, but it will also be problematic for third-party reports if patients communicate their own unblinding at interview. But, just as for other studies, symptoms alone are a problematic way of assessing outcome. In other words, they are not highly proximal to the disease process as for example research domain criteria dimensions have been suggested to be. But, they are also not distal enough for assessing the functional value of treatment either. More objective measures are possible. One could objectively measure simple motor activity or geolocation. Geolocation is particularly simple to obtain entirely passively from mobile phones. The resulting measure of time at home for example correlates well with depression severity in depressed bipolar patients. In cancer patients, there is the further domain of medical care, which is known to be complicated by co-morbid depression. An increase in adherence to treatment or even efficacy could result from really effective treatment. Greater objectivity should contribute more to the picture in future research of psilocybin's potential role. Nevertheless, for the moment, subjective response remains the regulatory standard against which psychotropic drugs will be measured.
DOES THE PSILOCYBIN EXPERIENCE REALLY BELONG IN MEDICINE?
The unspoken assumption, which I think we both share, is that the use of psilocybin at this stage requires a medical justification. Certainly, it started in western society as a putative aid to psychotherapy, but of course, it has an older cultural history as a constituent of magic mushrooms. Many believed and believe that the justification for the use of such drugs lies in their capacity to open the doors of perception, as Aldous Huxley put it. On this view, access to such drugs should be a recreational right, like access to alcohol, cigarettes, and increasingly cannabis. As with cannabis, medical use may be expected to promote wider discretionary use for any reason. Some may still regard this as a red light for the development of medical indications. However, there is an important corollary to the continuing illegal status of psychedelics. It seems to me paradoxical, even incredible, that such drugs should not be available for medical use in conditions for which euthanasia is already available. In Belgium, neuropsychiatric disorders were first reported under euthanasia legislation in 2004/5. Of the first such 100 patients considered for euthanasia between 2007 and 2011, 58 had depression. Forty-eight of the total were accepted for euthanasia (35 completed) and six others had died by suicide within 12 months from the end of the study. Most patients were female, aged 40-60 years. Euthanasia for psychological suffering is similarly available in the Netherlands and Luxemburg. So, I think we need psilocybin in medicine but we should not forget the failures of human logic, which mean we need high-quality clinical trials: "All who drink of this remedy recover in a short time, except those whom it does not help, who all die. Therefore, it is obvious that it fails only in incurable cases." (Galen in 180 AD)
HOW TO MOVE THE FIELD FORWARD (GMG AND RLC-H)
Our shared interest in the development of psychedelics, and particularly psilocybin, for medical use is a major point of convergence. There may be a subtle difference in our views of the so-called 'mystical' elements of the psychedelic experience, ie, both of us see the term 'mystical' as problematic-but whereas GMG views the acute 'psychedelic experience' as irrelevant to the clinical development of psychedelics, RLC-H sees it as a potentially exploitable component-especially as it has been shown to be predictive of long-term clinical outcomes (eg, in. Perhaps the most notable point of divergence, however, relates to the choice of patient population for the clinical development of psilocybin for depression. For GMG, the most obvious and relevant unmet need is treatment-resistant depression (see below), and while RLC-H accepts that treatment resistance is often the first port-of-call for the development of a novel intervention, he feels that unipolar depression more generally, will prove a better indication for this treatment. In his view, psilocybin will be safest, most effective, and easiest to implement, prior to the treatment-resistant stage of illness. Focusing on treatment-resistant depression for the moment, however, we both recognize that a significant number of patients treated first line with either a SSRI or CBT fail to respond adequately. Persisting symptoms lead to enduring chronicity of depression, and there is no consensus in existing guidelines on what to do next. Moreover, the efficacy of secondary intervention is often modest and new medications can introduce new side effects. The duration of distress with TRD and its economic impact are considerable. We agree that TRD represents a valid point in the treatment pathway, where a single psychedelic intervention might find a place; however, RLC-H questions whether patients must wait until their depression is significantly stamped-in before psilocybin can be considered, and based on the speed and duration of treatment responses seen in the trials listed above, it seems reasonable to ask whether early intervention with psilocybin could be prophylactic-and there is also the issue of SSRIs obstructing the potential therapeutic action of psilocybin. If it is to be TRD, however, then patient recruitment can be based on pre-existing criteriaand patients meeting them will not be rare and should not be excessively treatment resistant. As noted earlier, there is a significant challenge to the issue of continuing medication, most commonly with SSRIs. There is anecdotal evidence that psychedelic effects are largely attenuated by ongoing treatment with SSRIsand perhaps with other antidepressants. Downregulation of 5-HT2A receptors is a feature of many different first-line antidepressant drugs, as well as second-line antidepressant medications (eg, atypical antipsychotics) with significant 5-HT2AR antagonist properties. Any trial would ideally be conducted in patients withdrawn from such drugs for at least 2 weeks or so, but we accept that this is not always straightforward. Moving on from questions of the optimal patient population, both of us can see merit in a multiple dose trial comparing, for example, 1, 10 and 25 mg of psilocybin. Such a design seems to overcome some of the problems any trial of a psychedelic will face. The ethical problem of equipoise seems satisfactory because we really do not know which dose, if any, will be effective, and patients can enter the study knowing that whatever group they are allocated to, they will receive active drug. The omission of a strict placebo control would be pragmatic in this sense, as expectation and preparation would be standardized. We know the highest dose of psilocybin will likely unblind participants and the expectation of a possible placebo would complicate recruitment. An approximation to an inert placebo condition may be met with the 1 mg psilocybin arm, as such a dose is likely too low to produce appreciable subjective or physiological effects. The differences between a dose mainly producing perceptual distortion (10 mg) and one more capable of producing the more profound, putatively 'transformative' aspects of the psychedelic experience (25 mg) is also of scientific and clinical interest. Comparing mechanisms and/or efficacy with an established treatment would be a next step to advance the evidence base for psilocybin for TRD. For example, psilocybin could be compared with ketamine since it has some similarities: rapid, single-dose efficacy, and obvious subjective effects during its infusion. Psilocybin's distinctive subjective effects and the implications of this for blinding would still remain a major challenge; moreover, as with ketamine, there will also remain the question of how much an acute response is sustained and whether a maintenance dose may be required. The traditional view of the mechanism, whereby psilocybin works, emphasizes the importance of accompanying psychotherapy. Accordingly, psychedelics administered without psychological support and/or a supportive environment may have limited antidepressant efficacy, and in very rare cases, could even worsen a patient's condition. We share the view that the presence of psychological support is an essential component of the psychedelic treatment modelbut we also recognize that the magnitude and nature of its contribution needs to be better defined and tested. Pragmatically, we accept that minimizing the active psychological work of the therapy would be desirable (eg, therapy time is expensive) and scientifically, doing so would allow drug effects and dose to be better identified. Critically however, any such therapy minimization should not be allowed to jeopardize patient safety. A future challenge will be to learn how psychological interventions can maximize the advantages of the psychedelic state. For example, we can imagine how cognitive therapy, attentional-bias training and/or de-sensitization could be investigated with or without psilocybin assistance. In other respects, a psilocybin trial is easier to conduct than studies requiring continuing adherence to a daily oral dose of an antidepressant. Exposure to the treatment can be completely controlled and follow-up can be relatively pragmatic. It seems logical to determine an early proximal end point to prove initial impact of treatment and then to follow subsequent illness course as comprehensively as possible. In this way, we will be able to determine time to supplementary treatment, document recovery of symptoms and function, and perhaps objectify improvement using a simple frictionless measure of activity-like geolocation. In the short term, there will also be a need to demonstrate cost effectiveness. The requirement for psychological support and/or a supportive environment could be a major limitation of the psychedelic treatment model. However, direct medical costs need to be netted off against the social and economic costs of illness. In summary, a door has been opened for the medical repurposing of psychedelics. The possibility exists that drugs like psilocybin can meet a major unmet need in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. For GMG, treatmentresistant depression is the most logical place to start because of the uncertainty around the choice of next-step treatment after an SSRI fails, and while RLC-H accepts this, he looks forward to a time when an individual may receive psilocybin before the ruts of depression are allowed to deepen. Regardless of who the 'right' patient population might be eventually, a key challenge now is to design the optimal trial to demonstrate efficacy, agree its validity with regulatory authorities and fund it.
FUNDING AND DISCLOSURE
GMG is a NIHR senior investigator; the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. GMG holds a grant from Wellcome Trust, holds shares in P1vital and has in the past 3 years served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for Angelini, MSD, Lundbeck (/Otsuka or /Takeda), Medscape, P1Vital, Pfizer, Servier and Shire. RLC-H is supported by the Alex Mosley Charitable Trust and his research has received support from the Beckley Foundation, as part of the Beckley-Imperial Research Programme. RLC-H and GMG are currently advising Compass Pathways, a commercial initiative to develop psilocybin as a medicine.
Full Text PDF
Full Paper PDF
Create a free account to open full-text PDFs.
Study Details
- Study Typemeta
- Populationhumans
- Characteristicsliterature review
- Journal
- Compound
- Topics
- Authors
- APA Citation
References (39)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Bogenschutz, M. P., Forcehimes, A. A., Pommy, J. A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2015)
Bonson, K. R. · Neuropsychopharmacology (1996)
Bouso, J. C., González, D., Fondevila, S. et al. · PLOS ONE (2012)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, &. M., Day, C. M. J. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2017)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, M., Rucker, J. et al. · Lancet Psychiatry (2016)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Williams, T. et al. · PNAS (2012)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Kaelen, M., Bolstridge, M. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2016)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Kaelen, M., Whalley, M. G. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2014)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Leech, R., Williams, T. M. et al. · British Journal of Psychiatry (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Muthukumaraswamy, S., Roseman, L. et al. · PNAS (2016)
Show all 39 referencesShow fewer
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Nutt, D. J. · Journal of Substance Use (2010)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Nutt, D. J. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2013)
Carter, O. L., Hasler, F. ;., Pettigrew, J. D. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2007)
Cohen, S. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (1980)
Gasser, P., Holstein, D., Michel, Y. et al. · Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (2014)
Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E., Heekeren, K., Neukirch, A. et al. · Pharmacopsychiatry (2005)
Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., Mccann, U. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2006)
Grob, C. S., Danforth, A. L., Chopra, G. S. et al. · JAMA Psychiatry (2011)
Hartogsohn, I. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Hendricks, P. S., Thorne, C. B., Clark, B. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2015)
Johnson, M. W., Richards, W. A., Griffiths, R. R. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2008)
Johnson, M. W., Garcia-Romeu, A., Cosimano, M. P. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2014)
Kaelen, M., Barrett, F. S., Roseman, L. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2015)
Kometer, M., Schmidt, A., Bachmann, R. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2012)
Krebs, T. S., Johansen, P. Ø. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2012)
Maclean, K. A., Johnson, M. W., Griffiths, R. R. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2011)
Mangini, M. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2011)
Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Moran, R. J. et al. · Journal of Neuroscience (2013)
Osório, F. L., Sanches, R. F., Macedo, L. et al. · brazilian Journal of Psychiatry (2015)
Palhano-Fontes, F., Andrade, K. C., Tófoli, L.F. et al. · PLOS ONE (2015)
Preller, K. H., Herdener, M., Pokorny, T. et al. · Current Biology (2017)
Riba, J., Anderer, P., Jané, F. et al. · Neuropsychobiology (2004)
Ross, S., Bossis, A. P., Guss, J. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Rucker, J., Young, A. H., Jelen, L. A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2016)
Sanches, R. F., Osório, F. L., Dos Santos, R. G. et al. · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (2016)
Schmid, Y., Enzler, F., Gasser, P. et al. · Biological Psychiatry (2015)
Valle, M., Maqueda, A. E., Rabella, M. et al. · European Neuropsychopharmacology (2016)
Vollenweider, F. X., Leenders, K. L., Maguire, P. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (1997)
Vollenweider, F. X., Vollenweider-Scherpenhuyzen, M. F. I., Bäbler, A. et al. · NeuroReport (1998)
Cited By (151)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Jajcay, N., Vejmola, Č., Korčák, J. et al. · Biorxiv (2026)
Stein, M. V., Butler, M., Chapman, S. et al. · MedRvix (2026)
Subramani, V., Nest, T., Pascarella, A. et al. · Biorxiv (2026)
Kuc, J., McAlpine, R. G., Sellers, A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2026)
Sawers, N., Billingsley, M., Menkes, D. B. · Psychedelics (2026)
Orsini, D. K., Wong, S., Di Luch, S. et al. · JAMA Psychiatry (2026)
Gregorio, G. D., Basset, S., Manmohan, H. et al. · Research Square (2026)
Cheng, M., Aboulafia-Brakha, T., Buchard, A. et al. · Psychology International (2025)
Kirlić, N., Atli, M., Mistry, S. et al. · Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology (2025)
Pellegrini, L., Fineberg, N. A., O'Connor, S. et al. · Comprehensive Psychiatry (2025)
Show all 151 papersShow fewer
Martinez, R. L., Radošić, N., Molla, H. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2025)
Suay, D., Aicher, H. D., Singer, B. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2025)
Calnan, M., Blest-Hopley, G., Busch, C. et al. · Brain and Behavior (2025)
Roseby, W., Kettner, H., Roseman, L. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology (2025)
Wall, M. B., Demetriou, L., Giribaldi, B. et al. · American Journal of Psychiatry (2025)
Modzelewski, S., Waszkiewicz, N., Lukasiewicz, K. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2025)
Hinkle, J. T., Graziosi, M., Nayak, S. et al. · JAMA Psychiatry (2024)
McAlpine, R., Kamboj, S. K. · Scientific Reports (2024)
Syed, O. A., Petranker, R., Fewster, E. C. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2024)
Petridis, P. D., Grinband, J., Agin-Liebes, G. et al. · Nature Mental Health (2024)
Stroud, J., Rice, C., Orsini, A. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2024)
Torre, J. T. L., Gallo, J., Mahammadli, M. et al. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2024)
Nicol, G. E. · Nature (2024)
Moreton, S. G., Barr, N., Giese, K. J. · Death Studies (2024)
Tolle, H. M., Farah, J. C., Mallaroni, P. et al. · Network Neuroscience (2024)
Weiss, B., Leor Roseman, •., Giribaldi, B. et al. · International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2024)
Marrocu, A., Kettner, H., Weiss, B. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2024)
Aday, J. S., Bloesch, E. K., Davis, A. K. et al. · Journal of Humanistic Psychology (2024)
Vohryzek, J., Cabral, J., Lord, L. D. et al. · Brain Communications (2024)
Elmer, T., Vannoy, T. K., Studerus, E. et al. · Scientific Reports (2024)
Mediano, P. A. M., Rosas, F. E., Timmermann, C. et al. · ACS Chemical Neuroscience (2024)
Van Elk, M., Fried, E. I. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2023)
Lewis, B. R., Garland, E. L., Byrne, K. et al. · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (2023)
Bloesch, E. K., Davis, A. K., Domoff, S. E. et al. · Psyarxiv (2023)
Mccrone, P., Fisher, H., Knight, C. et al. · Psychological Medicine (2023)
Feusner, J. D., Wheaton, M. G., Gomez, G. J. et al. · Journal of Psychiatric Research (2023)
Bennett, J. N., Blough, M. D., Mitchell, I. et al. · MedRvix (2023)
Sadibolova, R., Murray-Lawson, C., Family, N. et al. · Biorxiv (2023)
Ryan, R. S., Copello, A., Fox, A. P. · BMC Psychiatry (2023)
Kaup, K. K., Vasser, M., Tulver, K. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2023)
Moreton, S. G., Arena, A. F., Foy, Y. et al. · Death Studies (2023)
Modlin, N. L., Miller, T. M., Rucker, J. J. et al. · Journal of Affective Disorders (2023)
Breant, B., Mengual, J. P., Bannerman, D. et al. · Biorxiv (2022)
Peterson, A., Largent, E. A., Sisti, D. et al. · AJOB Neuroscience (2022)
Guss, J. · Psychoanalytic Dialogues (2022)
Madsen, M. K., Ozenne, B., Armand, S. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology (2022)
Lerer, L. B., Varia, J. · Frontiers in Space Travel (2022)
Radakovic, C., Radakovic, R., Peryer, G. et al. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2022)
Stoliker, D., Egan, G. F., Friston, K. J. et al. · Pharmacological Reviews (2022)
Henningfield, J. E., Coe, M. A., Griffiths, R. R. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2022)
Bonnelle, V., Cavarra, M., Kryskow, P. et al. · British Journal of Pain (2022)
Luppi, A. I., Hansen, J. Y., Adapa, R. et al. · Biorxiv (2022)
Basedow, L. A., Kuitunen-Paul, S. · Drug and Alcohol Review (2022)
Gill, H., Puramat, P., Patel, P. et al. · Psychiatry Research (2022)
Pots, W., Chakhssi, F. · Frontiers in Psychology (2022)
Gandy, S. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2022)
Sekula, A. D., Downey, L., Puspanathan, P. · Frontiers in Psychology (2022)
Elman, I., Borsook, D., Pustilink, A. · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews (2022)
Lebrero-Tatay, J., Sebag, A., Ezquerra-Romano, I. I. · Journal of Drug Issues (2022)
Reckweg, J., Uthaug, M. V., Szabo, A. et al. · Journal of Neurochemistry (2022)
Barker, S. A. · Psychopharmacology (2022)
Olson, D. E. · Biochemistry (2022)
Hadar, A., David, J., Shalit, N. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Peill, J. M., Trinci, K. E., Kettner, H. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Rucker, J. J., Marwood, L., Ajantaival, R. L. J. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2022)
Polito, V., Liknaitzky, P. · Psyarxiv (2021)
Nair, J. B., Hakes, L., Yazar-Klosinski, B. et al. · ACS Omega (2021)
Olson, D. E. · Journal of Neurochemistry (2021)
Reckweg, J., Mason, N. L., van Leeuwen, C. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Nygart, V., Pommerencke, L. M., Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology (2021)
Hall, W. · Psychological Medicine (2021)
Cavanna, F., Pallavicini, C., Milano, V. et al. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2021)
Torregrossa, M. M., Lu, J., Lukasiewicz, K. et al. · Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience (2021)
Lafrance, A., Strahan, E., Bird, B. M. et al. · Journal of Humanistic Psychology (2021)
Johnson, M. W., Gründer, G., Betzler, F. et al. · Current Addiction Reports (2021)
Rodríguez Arce, J. M., Winkelman, M. J. · Frontiers in Psychology (2021)
Kuiperes, Z., Schreiber, R. · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (2021)
Podrebarac, S. K., O'donnell, K. C., Mennenga, S. E. et al. · Spirituality in Clinical Practice (2021)
Burt, J. B., Preller, K. H., Demirtaş, M. et al. · eLife (2021)
Dollar, C. B. · Qualitative Criminology (2021)
Strauss, D., de la Salle, S., Sloshower, J. A. et al. · Journal of Medical Ethics (2021)
Mans, K., Kettner, H., Erritzoe, D. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2021)
Timmermann, C., Kettner, H., Letheby, C. et al. · Scientific Reports (2021)
Siegel, A. N., Lipsitz, O., Gill, H. et al. · Journal of Psychiatric Research (2021)
Lu, J., Tjia, M., Mullen, B. et al. · Molecular Psychiatry (2021)
Roseman, L., Ron, Y., Saca, A. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2021)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Giribaldi, B., Watts, R. et al. · New England Journal of Medicine (2021)
Olbrich, S., Preller, K. H., Vollenweider, F. X. · Psychophysiology (2021)
Thomas, C. W., Blanco-Duque, C., Breant, B. et al. · Translational Psychiatry (2021)
Pallavicini, C., Cavanna, F., Zamberlan, F. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2021)
Luppi, A. I., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L. et al. · NeuroImage (2021)
O'shaughnessy, D. M., Berlowitz, I., Rodd, R. et al. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2021)
Rothberg, R. L., Azhari, N., Haug, N. A. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Gandy, S., Forstmann, M., Carhart-Harris, R. L. et al. · Health Psychology Open (2020)
Dudysová, D., Janků, K., Šmotek, M. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2020)
Kadriu, B., Greenwald, M., Ba et al. · International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Brouwer, A., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Holze, F., Vizeli, P., Ley, L. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Gill, H., Gill, B., Chen-Li, D. et al. · Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics (2020)
Greb, A. C., Vargas, M. V., Duim, W. C. et al. · ACS Pharmacology and Translational Science (2020)
Zeifman, R. J., Wagner, A. C., Watts, R. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020)
Luoma, J. B., Chwyl, C., Bathje, G. J. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2020)
Van Mulukom, V., Patterson, R. E., Van Elk, M. · Psychopharmacology (2020)
Greif, A., Šurkala, M. · Medicine Health Care and Philosophy (2020)
Mason, N. L., Kuypers, K. P. C., Reckweg, J. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Meinhardt, M. W., Güngör, C., Skorodumov, I. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2020)
Glowacki, D. R., Wonnacott, M. D., Freire, R. et al. · Association for Computing Machinery (2020)
Deane, G. · Philosophy and the Mind Sciences (2020)
Lewis, C. R., Preller, K. H., Braden, B. B. et al. · Biomedicines (2020)
Mason, N. L., Dolder, P. C., Kuypers, K. P. C. · Drug Science Policy and Law (2020)
Fuentes, J. J., Fonseca, F., Elices, M. et al. · Frontiers in Psychiatry (2020)
Agin-Liebes, G. I., Malone, T., Yalch, M. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2020)
Luoma, J. B., Sabucedo, P., Eriksson, J. et al. · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (2019)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Friston, K. J. · Pharmacological Reviews (2019)
Nutt, D. J. · Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience (2019)
Scott, G., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Neuroscience of Consciousness (2019)
Trope, A., Anderson, B. T., Hooker, A. R. et al. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2019)
Kuypers, K. P. C. · Medical Hypotheses (2019)
Cameron, L. P., Benson, C. J., Defelice, B. C. et al. · ACS Chemical Neuroscience (2019)
Erritzoe, D., Smith, J. M., Fisher, P. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2019)
Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Current Opinion in Psychiatry (2019)
Richards, W. A., Garcia-Romeu, A. · International Review of Psychiatry (2018)
Haijen, E. C. H. M., Kaelen, M., Roseman, L. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2018)
Timmermann, C., Spriggs, M. J., Kaelen, M. et al. · Neuropharmacology (2018)
Preller, K. H., Burt, J. B., Adkinson, B. et al. · eLife (2018)
Lyons, T., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Frontiers in Psychology (2018)
Milliere, R., Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L. et al. · Frontiers in Psychology (2018)
Dos Santos, R. G., Bouso, J. C., Hallak, J. E. · Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (2018)
Geiger, H. A., Wurst, M. G., Daniels, R. N. · ACS Chemical Neuroscience (2018)
Erritzoe, D., Roseman, L., Nour, M. R. et al. · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (2018)
Ly, C., Greb, A. C., Cameron, L. P. et al. · Cell Reports (2018)
Mason, N. L., Kuypers, K. P. C. · Journal of Psychedelic Studies (2018)
Kuypers, K. P. C. · Medical Hypotheses (2018)
Cameron, L. P., Benson, C. J., Dunlap, L. E. · ACS Chemical Neuroscience (2018)
Carrillo, F., Sigman, M., Fernández Slezak, D. et al. · Journal of Affective Disorders (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Neuropharmacology (2018)
Hartogsohn, I. · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (2018)
Swanson, L. R. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2018)
Moroz, M., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · IEEE Explore (2018)
Kaelen, M., Giribaldi, B., Raine, J. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Haijen, E. C. H. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2018)
Lyons, T., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2018)
Roseman, L., Nutt, D. J., Carhart-Harris, R. L. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2018)
Barsuglia, J. P., Polanco, M., Palmer, R. et al. · Progress in Brain Research (2018)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Bolstridge, &. M., Day, C. M. J. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2017)
Stroud, J., Freeman, T. P., Leech, R. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2017)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Roseman, L., Bolstridge, M. et al. · Scientific Reports (2017)
Bøhling, F. · International Journal of Drug Policy (2017)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Nutt, D. J. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2017)
Carhart-Harris, R. L., Erritzoe, D., Haijen, E. C. H. M. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2017)
Watts, R., Day, C. M., Krzanowski, J. et al. · Journal of Humanistic Psychology (2017)