Control Conditions in Randomized Trials of Psychedelics: An ACTTION Systematic Review
This systematic review (2023, s=86) of psychedelic RCTs (up to May 2020) finds that for placebo, 61% used an inert control, 20% active comparators (e.g. niacin), 15% both, and 4% a lower psychedelic dose. Of the 21 therapeutic trials, only 3 (14%) compared different amounts of therapy. Most studies were blinded, but less than 20% tested blinding (generally poor).
Authors
- Matthew Johnson
- Sandeep Nayak
Published
Abstract
Objective
To systematically review control conditions of all available randomized psychedelic trials.
Data Sources
We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for randomized trials of psychedelics in humans from 1940 through May 2020 with no language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed. (PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO-CRD42020205341.)
Study Selection
All randomized trials of psychedelics in humans from 1940 through May 2020 were included.
Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers performed extraction. Extracted data included study design, demographics, blinding type, whether and how blind integrity was assessed, psychedelic used and dose, drug control condition and dose, type of non-drug control condition, number of dosing sessions, and recruitment source. Outcome data were not collected.
Results
In total, 126 articles were included, encompassing 86 unique studies. Of studies with a drug control condition (80), 49 (61.2%) used an inert placebo control, 16 (20.0%) used active comparators, 12 (15.0%) used both, and 3 (3.8%) used only different active psychedelic doses as a control. Only 3 of 21 therapeutic trials compared the use of psychological support to a minimally supportive condition. The majority (81/86; 94%) of studies were blinded, though only 14 (17.3%) included blind assessment; only 8 of these 14 studies assessed participants’ blinding. Blinding success, assessed in highly varied ways, was generally poor.
Conclusions
Randomized psychedelic trials underutilize elements that would improve quality or provide important information: blind assessment, active drug controls, and testing psychological support against minimal-support conditions. Several queried categories, including blind integrity assessment and details of non-drug control conditions, were insufficiently reported by many reviewed studies. Recommendations are provided to improve trial methods.
Research Summary of 'Control Conditions in Randomized Trials of Psychedelics: An ACTTION Systematic Review'
Introduction
Psychedelics have attracted substantial interest as potential therapeutics because clinical trials report preliminary signals of benefit across diverse conditions. However, methodological concerns have been raised about control conditions in randomized psychedelic trials, notably the risk of unblinding from powerful subjective drug effects and the difficulty of separating drug-specific effects from non-specific effects arising from intensive interpersonal support during treatment sessions. The similarity between psychedelic subjective effects and psychotherapeutic processes further complicates the selection of appropriate control arms, and different trial goals (assessment of the combined intervention, isolation of drug mechanisms, or regulatory efficacy evidence) place divergent demands on control design. Nayak and colleagues set out to systematically review the control conditions used in all available randomized human trials of classic psychedelics through May 2020. The review aimed to document what drug and non-drug comparators have been used, how blinding has been handled and assessed, whether psychological support elements were controlled or compared, and to use these findings to produce methodological recommendations to strengthen future trials.
Expert Research Summaries
Go Pro to access AI-powered section-by-section summaries, editorial takes, and the full research toolkit.
Study Details
- Study Typemeta
- Journal
- Topic
- Authors
- APA Citation
Nayak, S. M., Bradley, M. K., Kleykamp, B. A., Strain, E. C., Dworkin, R. H., & Johnson, M. W. (2023). Control Conditions in Randomized Trials of Psychedelics: An ACTTION Systematic Review. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 84(3). https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.22r14518
References (9)
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Vollenweider, F. X., Vollenweider-Scherpenhuyzen, M. F. I., Bäbler, A. et al. · NeuroReport (1998)
Holze, F., Vizeli, P., Müller, F. et al. · Neuropsychopharmacology (2019)
Holze, F., Duthaler, U., Vizeli, P. et al. · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (2019)
Wittmann, M., Carter, O., Hasler, F. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2007)
Wittmann, M., Hasler, F., Vollenweider, F. X. · Neuroscience Letters (2008)
Preller, K. H., Herdener, M., Pokorny, T. et al. · Current Biology (2017)
Sumiyoshi, T., Kraehenmann, R., Pokorny, D. et al. · Frontiers in Pharmacology (2017)
Kraehenmann, R. ;., Pokorny, D. ;., Vollenweider, L. ;. et al. · Psychopharmacology (2017)
Preller, K. H., Schilbach, L., Pokorny, T. et al. · Journal of Neuroscience (2018)
Cited By (6)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Henningfield, J. E., Barrett, F. S., Evans, S. M. et al. · Journal of Psychopharmacology (2026)
Johnson, M. W., Naudé, G. P., Hendricks, P. S. et al. · JAMA Network Open (2026)
Szigeti, B., Heifets, B. D. · Biological Psychiatry (2024)
Haikazian, S., Chen-Li, D., Johnson, D. et al. · Psychiatry Research (2023)
Van Elk, M., Fried, E. I. · Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology (2023)
Pereira, L. · European Neuropsychopharmacology (2023)
Your Personal Research Library
Go Pro to save papers, add notes, rate studies, and organize your research into custom shelves.