Clinical psychology review
February 2, 2026
J K E Veraart, N Schimmers, J J Breeksema et al.
4 citations
Ketamine-assisted psychotherapy (KAP) combines psychotherapeutic interventions with the rapid-acting effects of ketamine to treat psychiatric disorders. This systematic review of 64 articles (72 studies) up to 2025 found only 11 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), highlighting limited evidence. Therapeutic approaches varied, with most classified as 'other.' Results suggest transdiagnostic effectiveness for major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, substance use disorders, and eating disorders. Compared to psychotherapy alone, KAP enhanced treatment engagement, symptom reduction, and duration of response. However, only two studies randomized psychotherapy alongside ketamine, neither reporting added effects; one also randomized ketamine and found no significant interaction. This limited evidence does not support added benefit or synergy from combining psychotherapy with ketamine.
European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology
June 1, 2026
A Reif, Yağcıoğlu Ae Anıl, I Bitter et al.
3 citations
A 2-year extension of a clinical trial followed 183 adults with treatment-resistant depression who had been using esketamine nasal spray alongside an antidepressant. Over 136 weeks, 96.7% reported side effects, but 98.3% of those occurring on dosing days resolved the same day, and only 3.3% stopped treatment due to side effects. Among patients who achieved remission during the earlier phase, 79.2% did not relapse or discontinue treatment throughout the extension; the overall relapse rate for those reaching remission across both studies was 6.9%. No new safety concerns emerged, and the safety profile matched that seen in shorter-term studies.
Psychedelics
June 28, 2026
Joost J. Breeksema, Ulf Bremberg, Jens H. van Dalfsen et al.
Psychedelic therapies face layered complexity from interactions between pharmacological and extra-pharmacological factors, and their embeddedness in societal, legal, and regulatory systems. This is compounded by epistemic fragmentation: dominant biomedical paradigms often clash with knowledge from social sciences, humanities, or Indigenous traditions. Though interdisciplinary engagement is increasingly recognized as necessary, existing calls rarely specify structural or pedagogical conditions for operationalizing it. Addressing these complexities requires moving beyond superficial collaboration; genuine interdisciplinary progress needs researchers capable of productive friction across epistemic cultures. The authors propose cultivating T-shaped competencies and intersectoral training as a structural response to these systemic challenges.