Skip to content

The efficacy and safety of psilocybin-assisted therapy for major depressive disorder: a meta-analytic review of clinical outcomes

Mohsen Khosravi, Domenico de Berardis, Massimo Tusconi

Mental Wellness April 21, 2026 DOI: 10.4081/mw.2026.40 via OpenAlex

Summary

AI-generated from the abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 clinical trials with 606 participants found no statistically significant overall antidepressant effect of psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. The pooled standardized mean difference was -0.79 with a 95% confidence interval from -3.98 to 2.40, and extreme heterogeneity across studies was observed. The type of control group accounted for most of the variation between studies, with waitlist and low-dose comparators exaggerating effect sizes. Session frequency moderated outcomes, with 2 to 5 sessions yielding larger effects and more intensive protocols reducing benefit. Psilocybin's antidepressant efficacy appears highly context-dependent rather than universally robust.

Study at a glance

Characteristics Systematic review and meta-analysis Peer reviewed
Sample size 606
Population Adults with major depressive disorder or treatment-resistant depression
Intervention Psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy
Topics Depression
Keywords Meta-analysis Antidepressant Clinical trial Depression economics
Key finding Psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy showed no statistically significant overall antidepressant effect, with efficacy highly dependent on trial design, comparator type, and session structure.

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized data from 13 clinical trials (n=606) evaluating psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy for major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Despite early enthusiasm, the pooled standardized mean difference (-0.79, 95% confidence interval: -3.98 to 2.40, p=0.63) revealed no statistically significant overall antidepressant effect, with extreme heterogeneity (I2=96.9%) across studies. Notably, the type of control group (active comparator vs. placebo/waitlist) accounted for 98.7% of between-study variance, with waitlist and low-dose comparators producing exaggerated effect sizes. Session frequency was a significant moderator: 2 to 5 psilocybin sessions yielded larger effects, while more intensive protocols attenuated benefit. Neither participant age nor follow-up duration significantly influenced outcomes. Evidence of reporting bias and small-study effects was detected (Egger’s test p=0.012). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that no single study accounted for the non-significant pooled result. Overall, psilocybin’s antidepressant efficacy appears highly context-dependent—shaped by trial design, comparator, and session structure—rather than universally robust. These findings underscore the need for larger, rigorously controlled trials to clarify psilocybin’s therapeutic role in depression.

Explore topics

Comments

No comments yet.

Log in to comment