-
JAMA Sep 2023Psilocybin shows promise as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD).
IMPORTANCE
Psilocybin shows promise as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD).
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the magnitude, timing, and durability of antidepressant effects and safety of a single dose of psilocybin in patients with MDD.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
In this phase 2 trial conducted between December 2019 and June 2022 at 11 research sites in the US, participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of psilocybin vs niacin placebo administered with psychological support. Participants were adults aged 21 to 65 years with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis of MDD of at least 60 days' duration and moderate or greater symptom severity. Exclusion criteria included history of psychosis or mania, active substance use disorder, and active suicidal ideation with intent. Participants taking psychotropic agents who otherwise met inclusion/exclusion criteria were eligible following medication taper. Primary and secondary outcomes and adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline (conducted within 7 days before dosing) and at 2, 8, 15, 29, and 43 days after dosing.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions were a 25-mg dose of synthetic psilocybin or a 100-mg dose of niacin in identical-appearing capsules, each administered with psychological support.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was change in central rater-assessed Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score (range, 0-60; higher scores indicate more severe depression) from baseline to day 43. The key secondary outcome measure was change in MADRS score from baseline to day 8. Other secondary outcomes were change in Sheehan Disability Scale score from baseline to day 43 and MADRS-defined sustained response and remission. Participants, study site personnel, study sponsor, outcome assessors (raters), and statisticians were blinded to treatment assignment.
RESULTS
A total of 104 participants (mean [SD] age, 41.1 [11.3] years; 52 [50%] women) were randomized (51 to the psilocybin group and 53 to the niacin group). Psilocybin treatment was associated with significantly reduced MADRS scores compared with niacin from baseline to day 43 (mean difference,-12.3 [95% CI, -17.5 to -7.2]; P <.001) and from baseline to day 8 (mean difference, -12.0 [95% CI, -16.6 to -7.4]; Pā<ā.001). Psilocybin treatment was also associated with significantly reduced Sheehan Disability Scale scores compared with niacin (mean difference, -2.31 [95% CI, 3.50-1.11]; Pā<ā.001) from baseline to day 43. More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained response (but not remission) than those receiving niacin. There were no serious treatment-emergent AEs; however, psilocybin treatment was associated with a higher rate of overall AEs and a higher rate of severe AEs.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Psilocybin treatment was associated with a clinically significant sustained reduction in depressive symptoms and functional disability, without serious adverse events. These findings add to increasing evidence that psilocybin-when administered with psychological support-may hold promise as a novel intervention for MDD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03866174.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Male; Depressive Disorder, Major; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; Mental Health; Niacin
PubMed: 37651119
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.14530 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jul 2023Neuropathological mechanisms of manic syndrome or manic episodes in bipolar disorder remain poorly characterised, as the research progress is severely limited by the...
Neuropathological mechanisms of manic syndrome or manic episodes in bipolar disorder remain poorly characterised, as the research progress is severely limited by the paucity of appropriate animal models. Here we developed a novel mania mice model by combining a series of chronic unpredictable rhythm disturbances (CURD), which include disruption of circadian rhythm, sleep deprivation, exposure to cone light, with subsequent interference of followed spotlight, stroboscopic illumination, high-temperature stress, noise disturbance and foot shock. Multiple behavioural and cell biology tests comparing the CURD-model with healthy controls and depressed mice were deployed to validate the model. The manic mice were also tested for the pharmacological effects of various medicinal agents used for treating mania. Finally, we compared plasma indicators of the CURD-model mice and the patients with the manic syndrome. The CURD protocol produced a phenotype replicating manic syndrome. Mice exposed to CURD presented manic behaviours similar to that observed in the amphetamine manic model. These behaviours were distinct from depressive-like behaviours recorded in mice treated with a depression-inducing protocol of chronic unpredictable mild restraint (CUMR). Functional and molecular indicators in the CURD mania model showed multiple similarities with patients with manic syndrome. Treatment with LiCl and valproic acid resulted in behavioural improvements and recovery of molecular indicators. A novel manic mice model induced by environmental stressors and free from genetic or pharmacological interventions is a valuable tool for research into pathological mechanisms of mania.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Mania; Disease Models, Animal; Bipolar Disorder; Valproic Acid; Sleep Deprivation
PubMed: 36991130
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-023-02037-8 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2023To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically assess credibility and certainty of associations between cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis based medicines and human health, from observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DESIGN
Umbrella review.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, up to 9 February 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs that have reported on the efficacy and safety of cannabis, cannabinoids, or cannabis based medicines were included. Credibility was graded according to convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or not significant (observational evidence), and by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) (RCTs). Quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Sensitivity analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
101 meta-analyses were included (observational=50, RCTs=51) (AMSTAR 2 high 33, moderate 31, low 32, or critically low 5). From RCTs supported by high to moderate certainty, cannabis based medicines increased adverse events related to the central nervous system (equivalent odds ratio 2.84 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 3.73)), psychological effects (3.07 (1.79 to 5.26)), and vision (3.00 (1.79 to 5.03)) in people with mixed conditions (GRADE=high), improved nausea/vomit, pain, spasticity, but increased psychiatric, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence among others (GRADE=moderate). Cannabidiol improved 50% reduction of seizures (0.59 (0.38 to 0.92)) and seizure events (0.59 (0.36 to 0.96)) (GRADE=high), but increased pneumonia, gastrointestinal adverse events, and somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For chronic pain, cannabis based medicines or cannabinoids reduced pain by 30% (0.59 (0.37 to 0.93), GRADE=high), across different conditions (n=7), but increased psychological distress. For epilepsy, cannabidiol increased risk of diarrhoea (2.25 (1.33 to 3.81)), had no effect on sleep disruption (GRADE=high), reduced seizures across different populations and measures (n=7), improved global impression (n=2), quality of life, and increased risk of somnolence (GRADE=moderate). In the general population, cannabis worsened positive psychotic symptoms (5.21 (3.36 to 8.01)) and total psychiatric symptoms (7.49 (5.31 to 10.42)) (GRADE=high), negative psychotic symptoms, and cognition (n=11) (GRADE=moderate). In healthy people, cannabinoids improved pain threshold (0.74 (0.59 to 0.91)), unpleasantness (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88)) (GRADE=high). For inflammatory bowel disease, cannabinoids improved quality of life (0.34 (0.22 to 0.53) (GRADE=high). For multiple sclerosis, cannabinoids improved spasticity, pain, but increased risk of dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, somnolence (GRADE=moderate). For cancer, cannabinoids improved sleep disruption, but had gastrointestinal adverse events (n=2) (GRADE=moderate). Cannabis based medicines, cannabis, and cannabinoids resulted in poor tolerability across various conditions (GRADE=moderate). Evidence was convincing from observational studies (main and sensitivity analyses) in pregnant women, small for gestational age (1.61 (1.41 to 1.83)), low birth weight (1.43 (1.27 to 1.62)); in drivers, car crash (1.27 (1.21 to 1.34)); and in the general population, psychosis (1.71 (1.47 to 2.00)). Harmful effects were noted for additional neonatal outcomes, outcomes related to car crash, outcomes in the general population including psychotic symptoms, suicide attempt, depression, and mania, and impaired cognition in healthy cannabis users (all suggestive to highly suggestive).
CONCLUSIONS
Convincing or converging evidence supports avoidance of cannabis during adolescence and early adulthood, in people prone to or with mental health disorders, in pregnancy and before and while driving. Cannabidiol is effective in people with epilepsy. Cannabis based medicines are effective in people with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, inflammatory bowel disease, and in palliative medicine but not without adverse events.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018093045.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists; Cannabis; Chronic Pain; Hallucinogens; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Sleepiness; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37648266
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072348