Serotoninergic antidepressants combination in psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psilocybin has reemerged as a promising treatment for difficult-to-treat depression (DTD). Although there is limited evidence regarding interactions between psilocybin and other psychotropic drugs, clinical trials require that patients discontinue their antidepressants before study entry to isolate the benefits of psilocybin and to minimize the risk of adverse events. We present the first case of an adult patient with DTD who received psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy (PAP) in combination with two serotoninergic antidepressants (duloxetine and vortioxetine). Since he displayed a partial response after the first PAP session, he agreed to discontinue duloxetine (but refused to stop vortioxetine) before the second PAP session to see if it could improve the therapeutic efficacy of psilocybin. However, his anxiety and depressive symptoms worsened. Psilocybin was well-tolerated in both PAP sessions; mild headaches were the main adverse effects experienced by the patient, and there were no cardiovascular safety concerns. This case report suggests that serotoninergic antidepressants combination with psilocybin appears to be safe and that antidepressant discontinuation prior to PAP may not be necessary. Since the continuation of antidepressants during PAP has the potential to improve treatment acceptability and accessibility, future research should assess whether psilocybin can be administered concurrently with antidepressants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".