Logo image
Back
Psychedelic Therapy vs Antidepressants for the Treatment of Depression Under Equal Unblinding Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Psychedelic Therapy vs Antidepressants for the Treatment of Depression Under Equal Unblinding Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zachary J. Williams, Hannah Barnett and Balázs Szigeti
JAMA psychiatry (Chicago, Ill.)
18 Mar 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.4809
PMID: 41848744
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
url
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13000746/View
Submitted This article will be available in PMC on 18 March 2027 Open Open Access (License Unspecified)

Abstract

Importance: Psychedelic-assisted therapy (PAT) trials have high levels of functional unblinding, which biases results when comparing PAT with blinded interventions. Because PAT is effectively always open label, treatment results should be compared with those of open-label traditional antidepressants (TADs), so potential benefits associated with patients knowing their treatment is equal between the interventions. Objective: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of PAT vs open-label traditional antidepressants (TADs; such as selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) for the treatment of major depression. Data sources: PubMed was systematically searched in March 2024 for trials of PAT and open-label TADs for the treatment of major depression without comorbidity in adults without psychosis in the outpatient setting. Extraction was supplemented with data from a review and meta-analysis of antidepressant drugs to assess the open-label vs blinded TAD difference. Data extraction and synthesis: Depression scores were extracted by 2 independent reviewers; estimates were pooled with both bayesian and frequentist mixed-effects models. Reporting follows the PRISMA guideline. Main outcomes and measure: Following predefined hypotheses, the mean within-arm effect from baseline to primary end point (ie, patient improvement between PAT and open-label TAD trials on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) was compared. To assess the potential role of blinding, the within-arm effect of blinded vs open-label trials in both PAT and TADs was also compared. Results: Of the initially retrieved PubMed 619 records, 24 met inclusion criteria. Contrary to the first of 3 hypotheses, PAT (8 trials; 249 patients) was no more effective than open-label TAD treatment (16 open-label TAD trials; 7921 patients), with an estimated difference of 0.3 favoring open-label TADs (95% CI, -1.39 to 1.98; P = .73). Open-label TADs were associated with better outcomes than blinded treatment (144 blinded TAD trials; 31 792 patients), with an estimated difference of 1.3 (95% CI, 0.07-2.51; P = .04;), but the same difference was not observed for PAT (0.67; 95% CI, -3.08 to 1.73; P = .58). Conclusions and relevance: In trials of depression, PAT was not more effective than open-label TADs. Blinding made a difference for TADs, but not for PAT, confirming that PAT trials are effectively always open label. These results argue against highly optimistic narratives surrounding PAT and highlight the importance of blinding integrity.

Metrics

7 Record Views
1 citations in Web of Science

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: SDGs in the Output

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Psychiatry
Logo image