Effect of psilocybin versus escitalopram on depression symptom severity in patients with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder: observational 6-month follow-up of a phase 2, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Psilocybin therapy (PT) produces rapid and persistent antidepressant effects in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the long-term effects of PT have never been compared with gold-standard treatments for MDD such as pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy alone or in combination. Methods: This is a 6-month follow-up study of a phase 2, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial involving patients with moderate-to-severe MDD. Participants were recruited from a hospital in the UK. Male or female patients with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV), moderate to severe depression (HAM-D ≥17), no MRI or SSRI contraindications, confirmed diagnosis by a GP or mental healthcare professional, aged 18-80, and competent in English were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either two 25 mg doses of the psychedelic drug psilocybin administered orally combined with psychological support ('psilocybin therapy' or PT) and book-ended by further support or a 6-week course of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) escitalopram (administered daily at 10 mg for three weeks and 20 mg for the subsequent three weeks) plus matched psychological support ('escitalopram treatment' or ET). The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in the score on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) at week 6, which has been reported previously. Herein, we present results at the 6-month follow-up time point. Measures of social functioning, connectedness, and meaning in life constituted the study's secondary outcomes during follow-up. Safety in the follow-up period was not assessed. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03429075. Findings: Between January 15th, 2019 and March 20th, 2020, 59 patients were enrolled and 30 (11 females [37%] and 19 males [63%]) were assigned to the psilocybin group and 29 (9 females [31%] and 20 males [69%]) to the escitalopram group. 25 participants in the PT group and 21 in the ET group completed the 6-month follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, both PT and ET conditions yielded sustained improvements in depressive symptom severity. The mean between-condition difference in QIDS-SR-16 scores at 6-months was 1.51 (95% CI: -1.35, 4.38; p = 0.311). Secondary outcomes demonstrated that PT had greater mean between-condition differences in functioning (WSAS: -7.46; 95% CI: -12.4, -2.47; p < 0.001), psychological connectedness (WCS: 11.02; 95% CI: 1.25, 20.83; p = 0.033), and meaning in life (MLQ: 4.86; 95% CI: 0.67, 9.05; p = 0.021) compared to ET. Interpretation: Six-week intensive treatments with either psilocybin or escitalopram (with psychological support) for MDD were associated with long-term improvements in depressive symptom severity. The greater degree of improvement in the PT arm at follow-up on psychosocial functioning, meaning in life, and psychological connectedness suggests warrant future research. However, these results are descriptive and should be interpreted with caution. Key limitations of the study include its suboptimal power to detect small but meaningful differences between treatments, missing data, the potential use of additional interventions during the follow-up period, and reliance on self-reported treatment assessments. These factors may affect the interpretation of the study findings and should be considered when evaluating the results. Funding: The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust and by the founding partners of Imperial College London's Centre for Psychedelic Research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".