Relational and Growth Outcomes Following Couples Therapy With MDMA for PTSD

This was an uncontrolled pilot trial conducted in a private practice clinic in Charleston, South Carolina, enrolling six romantic dyads in which one partner met criteria for PTSD and the other did not. Inclusion criteria for both members included age 18 or older, absence of current substance use disorder, no active suicidal intent or planning, and no mania, psychosis, or severe partner aggression. Participants were required to taper off psychiatric medications and underwent medical screening for contraindicated conditions. The extracted text reports that the sample was homogenous: average age around 47 years, all participants identified as White, and all couples were mixed-gender partnerships; further participant descriptors indicate patients with PTSD had co-morbid diagnoses and prior PTSD treatments. Assessments occurred at pre-treatment, mid-treatment, post-treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. The study used a battery of standardised measures to capture relational and psychosocial outcomes, including the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2) for conflict and aggression, the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI, adapted for collateral report), the Significant Others' Responses to Trauma Scale (SORTS) to assess behavioural accommodation, the Quality of Relationships Inventory (QRI) for support, conflict and depth, the Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning (IPF), the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS), and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) for empathy subscales. The intervention combined CBCT for PTSD with two full-day MDMA-assisted psychotherapy sessions delivered within the CBCT protocol. CBCT modules spanned safety-building, communication skills and behavioural approach, and cognitive work; the protocol was condensed into a 7-week course with CBCT modules intentionally positioned around the MDMA sessions to amplify communication and trauma-processing work. MDMA dosing began at 75 mg in the first session with an optional 37.5 mg supplemental dose 1.5 hours later; the second session used a base dose of 100 mg with an optional 50 mg supplement at 1.5 hours. During MDMA sessions participants had a largely inward-directed setting with eyeshades, headphones, instrumental music, and opportunities to alternate between internal focus and sharing with therapists and partner. For analysis, growth curve models were fitted to outcomes with time transformed as the natural log of days since baseline. Models with different variance structures were compared using chi-square difference tests; because a more complex random-intercepts-and-slopes model often failed to converge given the small sample, the investigators retained a more parsimonious model with fixed slopes and random intercepts. Within-group effect sizes (Cohen's d) from pre-treatment to later timepoints were computed using estimated means and pooled standard deviations. The extracted text notes up to 1–2 missing data points per outcome at an assessment (maximum around 30%).

Across domains the authors report improvements in relational functioning, post-traumatic growth, and reduced behavioural accommodation, with many gains maintained through 6-month follow-up. However, some model estimates could not be obtained for rarely endorsed items given low base rates and the small sample. On relationship aggression (CTS-2), patients showed a statistically significant reduction in minor psychological aggression (B = -0.98, SE = 0.21, p < 0.001), with within-group effect sizes reported in the range d = 1.06–1.56. There was no significant change in minor physical assault for patients. Models for several minor aggression subscales (minor sexual coercion, minor injury) could not be estimated due to infrequent endorsement. For partners, estimation of minor physical assault, psychological aggression, sexual coercion and injury scales was similarly not possible because of low endorsement. The investigators examined minor aggression specifically to ensure the treatment did not increase lower-level interpersonal harm; the absence of increases in severe aggression was noted. Relationship quality as measured by the QRI showed significant increases in perceived support for both patients and partners (patients: B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.041, d = 0.68–0.94; partners: B = 0.08, SE = 0.03, p = 0.029, d = 0.47–0.81). Conflict decreased significantly according to partners (B = -0.09, SE = 0.03, p = 0.002, d = 0.51–0.83) but patient-reported conflict reductions did not reach statistical significance (B = -0.06, SE = 0.03, p = 0.062). No significant changes were observed in the depth subscale for either patients or partners. Intimacy (MSIS) increased for both members of the dyads (patients: B = 4.12, SE = 1.32, p = 0.005, d = 0.93–1.31; partners: B = 3.10, SE = 1.03, p = 0.007, d = 0.41–0.68). On psychosocial functioning (IPF), patients reported significant improvement (B = -3.20, SE = 0.69, p < 0.001, d = 0.95–1.26), whereas partner ratings showed no significant change (B = -0.67, SE = 0.63, p = 0.299, d = 0.24–0.43). For empathy (IRI), patients had a significant increase in empathic concern (B = 0.69, SE = 0.32, p = 0.037, d = 0.58–0.95); partners did not show change on that subscale. No significant changes were detected for personal distress, fantasy, or perspective-taking subscales for either group in the extracted results. The paper reports significant improvements in post-traumatic growth and reductions in partner-reported behavioural accommodation (SORTS), but the extracted text does not provide the specific statistical estimates or effect sizes for those measures. The authors also emphasise that improvements were sustained during follow-up assessments, though full numeric follow-up trajectories are reported in tables not included in the extracted text.

Wagner and colleagues interpret their findings as evidence that combining CBCT for PTSD with MDMA-assisted psychotherapy can produce meaningful relational and growth-related benefits for both the person with PTSD and their partner. The authors highlight improvements in perceived support, intimacy, partner-reported reductions in conflict and behavioural accommodation, and increased post-traumatic growth as indicative of a broader, more relationally focused recovery process beyond symptom reduction alone. They note that the reduction in minor psychological aggression and the continued absence of severe aggression across time points suggest the intervention did not increase interpersonal harm. The investigators suggest several mechanisms that may have contributed to relational gains, including CBCT's explicit focus on communication and behavioural approach and MDMA's empathogenic effects that appeared to facilitate greater connection and openness during sessions; participants reportedly described feelings of greater connection persisting beyond the sessions. Improvements in patient empathic concern and psychosocial functioning are interpreted as signs of increased engagement with relationships and daily life, while stable high baseline functioning among partners may have limited detectable partner-level gains on some measures. Key limitations acknowledged by the authors include the very small sample size, the lack of diversity in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and the uncontrolled design that precludes causal conclusions or separation of the effects of CBCT versus MDMA. Model estimation problems for low-base-rate aggression items and some missing statistical detail for certain measures in the extracted text are also implicit constraints. The authors recommend larger, controlled trials with more representative samples to confirm these relational and growth effects and explore whether couple therapy with MDMA may be applicable to other relationship-focused problems beyond PTSD.