Personality change in a trial of psilocybin therapy v. escitalopram treatment for depression.

BACKGROUND: Psilocybin Therapy (PT) is being increasingly studied as a psychiatric intervention. Personality relates to mental health and can be used to probe the nature of PT's therapeutic action. METHODS: In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, active comparator controlled trial involving patients with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder, we compared psilocybin with escitalopram, over a core 6-week trial period. Five-Factor model personality domains, Big Five Aspect Scale Openness aspects, Absorption, and Impulsivity were measured at Baseline, Week 6, and Month 6 follow-up. RESULTS: PT was associated with decreases in neuroticism (B = -0.63), introversion (B = -0.38), disagreeableness (B = -0.47), impulsivity (B = -0.40), and increases in absorption (B = 0.32), conscientiousness (B = 0.30), and openness (B = 0.23) at week 6, with neuroticism (B = -0.47) and disagreeableness (B = -0.41) remaining decreased at month 6. Escitalopram Treatment (ET) was associated with decreases in neuroticism (B = -0.38), disagreeableness (B = -0.26), impulsivity (B = -0.35), and increases in openness (B = 0.28) at week 6, with neuroticism (B = -0.46) remaining decreased at month 6. No significant between-condition differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Personality changes across both conditions were in a direction consistent with improved mental health. With the possible exception of trait absorption, there were no compelling between-condition differences warranting conclusions regarding a selective action of PT (v. ET) on personality; however, post-ET changes in personality were significantly moderated by pre-trial positive expectancy for escitalopram, whereas expectancy did not moderate response to PT.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamic and wellbeing effects of SPL026 (dimethyltryptamine fumarate) in healthy participants: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial.

Background: Due to their potential impact on mood and wellbeing there has been increasing interest in the potential of serotonergic psychedelics such as N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Aim: The aim of Part A of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profile of escalating doses of SPL026 (DMT fumarate) in psychedelic-naïve healthy participants to determine a dose for administration to patients with MDD in the subsequent Phase 2a part of the trial (Part B: not presented in this manuscript). Methods: In the Phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single dose-escalation trial, psychedelic-naïve participants were randomized to placebo (n = 8) or four different escalating doses [9, 12, 17 and 21.5 mg intravenously (IV)] of SPL026 (n = 6 for each dose) together with psychological support from 2 therapy team members. PK and acute (immediately following dosing experience) psychometric measures [including mystical experience questionnaire (MEQ), ego dissolution inventory (EDI), and intensity rating visual analogue scale (IRVAS)] were determined. Additional endpoints were measured as longer-term change from baseline to days 8, 15, 30 and 90. These measures included the Warwick and Edinburgh mental wellbeing scale and Spielberger's state-trait anxiety inventory. Results: SPL026 was well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile, with no serious adverse events. There was some evidence of a correlation between maximum plasma concentration and increased IRVAS, MEQ, and EDI scores. These trends are likely to require confirmation in a larger sample size. Using the analysis of the safety, tolerability, PD, PK results, doses of 21.5 mg SPL026 were the most likely to provide an intense, tolerated experience. Conclusion: Based on the data obtained from this part of the trial, a dose of 21.5 mg SPL026 given as a 2-phase IV infusion over 10 min (6 mg/5 min and 15.5 mg/5 min) was selected as the dose to be taken into patients in Part B (to be presented in a future manuscript).Clinical trial registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04673383; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu, identifier 2020-000251-13; https://www.isrctn.com/, identifier ISRCTN63465876.

Trial of Psilocybin versus Escitalopram for Depression.

BACKGROUND: Psilocybin may have antidepressant properties, but direct comparisons between psilocybin and established treatments for depression are lacking. METHODS: In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with long-standing, moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder, we compared psilocybin with escitalopram, a selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitor, over a 6-week period. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two separate doses of 25 mg of psilocybin 3 weeks apart plus 6 weeks of daily placebo (psilocybin group) or two separate doses of 1 mg of psilocybin 3 weeks apart plus 6 weeks of daily oral escitalopram (escitalopram group); all the patients received psychological support. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the score on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16; scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating greater depression) at week 6. There were 16 secondary outcomes, including QIDS-SR-16 response (defined as a reduction in score of >50%) and QIDS-SR-16 remission (defined as a score of ≤5) at week 6. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were enrolled; 30 were assigned to the psilocybin group and 29 to the escitalopram group. The mean scores on the QIDS-SR-16 at baseline were 14.5 in the psilocybin group and 16.4 in the escitalopram group. The mean (±SE) changes in the scores from baseline to week 6 were -8.0±1.0 points in the psilocybin group and -6.0±1.0 in the escitalopram group, for a between-group difference of 2.0 points (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.0 to 0.9) (P = 0.17). A QIDS-SR-16 response occurred in 70% of the patients in the psilocybin group and in 48% of those in the escitalopram group, for a between-group difference of 22 percentage points (95% CI, -3 to 48); QIDS-SR-16 remission occurred in 57% and 28%, respectively, for a between-group difference of 28 percentage points (95% CI, 2 to 54). Other secondary outcomes generally favored psilocybin over escitalopram, but the analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the change in depression scores on the QIDS-SR-16 at week 6, this trial did not show a significant difference in antidepressant effects between psilocybin and escitalopram in a selected group of patients. Secondary outcomes generally favored psilocybin over escitalopram, but the analyses of these outcomes lacked correction for multiple comparisons. Larger and longer trials are required to compare psilocybin with established antidepressants. (Funded by the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and Imperial College London's Centre for Psychedelic Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03429075.).

Therapeutic Alliance and Rapport Modulate Responses to Psilocybin Assisted Therapy for Depression.

Background: Across psychotherapeutic frameworks, the strength of the therapeutic alliance has been found to correlate with treatment outcomes; however, its role has never been formally assessed in a trial of psychedelic-assisted therapy. We aimed to investigate the relationships between therapeutic alliance and rapport, the quality of the acute psychedelic experience and treatment outcomes. Methods: This 2-arm double-blind randomized controlled trial compared escitalopram with psychedelic-assisted therapy for moderate-severe depressive disorder (N = 59). This analysis focused on the psilocybin condition (n = 30), who received two oral doses of 25 mg psilocybin, 3-weeks apart, with psychological preparation, in-session support, and integration therapy. A new psychedelic therapy model, called "Accept-Connect-Embody" (ACE), was developed in this trial. The primary outcome was depression severity 6 weeks post treatment (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, QIDS-SR-16). Path analyses tested the hypothesis that therapeutic alliance (Scale To Assess the Therapeutic Relationship Patient Version, STAR-P) would predict depression outcomes via its influence on the acute psychedelic experience, specifically emotional-breakthrough (EBI) and mystical-type experiences (MEQ). The same analysis was performed on the escitalopram arm to test specificity. Results: The strength of therapeutic alliance predicted pre-session rapport, greater emotional-breakthrough and mystical-type experience (maximum EBI and MEQ scores across the two psilocybin sessions) and final QIDS scores (ß = -0.22, R 2 = 0.42 for EBIMax; ß = -0.19, R 2 = 0.32 for MEQMax). Exploratory path models revealed that final depression outcomes were more strongly affected by emotional breakthrough during the first, and mystical experience during the second session. Emotional breakthrough, but not mystical experience, during the first session had a positive effect on therapeutic alliance ahead of the second session (ß = 0.79, p < 0.0001). Therapeutic alliance ahead of the second session had a direct impact on final depression scores, not mediated by the acute experience, with a weaker alliance ahead of the second psilocybin session predicting higher absolute depression scores at endpoint (ß = -0.49, p < 0.001) Discussion: Future research could consider therapist training and characteristics; specific participant factors, e.g., attachment style or interpersonal trauma, which may underlie the quality of the therapeutic relationship, the psychedelic experience and clinical outcomes; and consider how therapeutic approaches might adapt in cases of weaker therapeutic alliance. Clinical Trial Registration: This trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier (NCT03429075).