ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci
December 10, 2020
David B. Yaden, Roland R. Griffiths
534 citations
Classic psychedelics induce altered states of consciousness that people often find meaningful. In human studies, when the overall intensity of drug effects is statistically controlled, specific subjective experiences—not just neurobiological changes—predict therapeutic and other positive outcomes. The authors argue that these subjective effects are necessary for lasting benefits and account for most of the improvement, while underlying brain mechanisms are likely necessary but insufficient on their own.
ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci
March 5, 2021
Jacob S. Aday, Alan K. Davis, Cayla M. Mitzkovitz et al.
228 citations
People who are more open, accepting, and prone to absorption, as well as those who enter a psychedelic session with a mindset of surrender, are more likely to have positive, mystical-type experiences. Conversely, individuals who are low in openness or surrender, or who arrive in a preoccupied, apprehensive, or confused state, are more likely to experience adverse reactions. A systematic review of 14 studies found that sex is not a robust predictor of drug effects, but certain brain-based measures—such as 5-HT2AR binding potential, executive network node diversity, and rACC volume—may serve as biomarkers. Older age and prior experience with psychedelics are linked to less intense effects, suggesting users may become slightly less sensitive after repeated use.
ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci
March 16, 2021
Jake E Payne, Richard Chambers, Paul Liknaitzky
80 citations
Psychedelic and mindfulness interventions each improve mental health but pose distinct challenges in treatment. This Perspective identifies complementary affordances—useful differences—that could address each other's shortcomings. The authors propose a metaphor: psychedelic treatments act as a Compass, initiating and steering mindfulness practice, while mindfulness interventions serve as a Vehicle, integrating and sustaining insights from psychedelic experiences. They outline testable hypotheses for combining both approaches to enhance clinical outcomes, suggesting that synergy may deepen, generalize, and maintain therapeutic benefits.