Overcoming blinding confounds in psychedelic randomized controlled trials using biomarker driven causal mediation analysis

Effect sizes in randomized controlled trials of psychedelic-assisted therapies are likely inflated because participants and study personnel can often tell who received the active drug, breaking the blind. Causal mediation analysis using objectively measured biomarkers could identify genuine causal pathways between treatment and outcome even when blinding fails. Psychedelic therapies should not be approved as regular medicines until such causal pathways are clearly established. Premature approval risks expanding indications based on low-quality evidence, setting a precedent for other therapies, and allowing efficacy to become unstable after approval.

Study at a glance

Abstract

There is great interest in the use of psychedelic-assisted therapies to treat a range of mental health conditions and initial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) trials have generated positive results. However, the effect sizes reported in psychedelic RCTs are likely inflated due to expectancy effects due to the de-blinding of both participants and study personnel to treatment allocation caused by the distinctive psychoactive effects of psychedelic drugs. In this article an introduction to causal inference for randomized controlled trials, the underlying assumptions, and potential confounders along with graphical illustrations is provided. It is proposed that causal mediation analysis using objectively measured mediating biomarkers could be used to identify causal pathways between treatment and outcome in psychedelic RCTs, even with de-blinding of participants and give greater confidence as to the mechanistic basis and efficacy of psychedelic therapies. It is argued that psychedelic therapies should not be approved as regular medicines until causal pathways are clearly established between treatment and outcome. Potential downsides of doing so include, future indication expansion based on low quality clinical trial evidence, the approval of other therapies based on similarly low-quality evidence, and the potential for efficacy to be unstable over time after approval.