Is microdosing a placebo? A rapid review of low-dose LSD and psilocybin research.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Psychopharmacology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1177/02698811241254831
Vince Polito, Paul Liknaitzky
{"title":"Is microdosing a placebo? A rapid review of low-dose LSD and psilocybin research.","authors":"Vince Polito, Paul Liknaitzky","doi":"10.1177/02698811241254831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Some recent research and commentary have suggested that most or all the effects reported by people who microdose psychedelics may be explained by expectations or placebo effects. In this rapid review, we aimed to evaluate the strength of evidence for a placebo explanation of the reported effects of microdosing. We conducted a PubMed search for all studies investigating psychedelic microdosing with controlled doses and a placebo comparator. We identified 19 placebo-controlled microdosing studies and summarised all positive and null findings across this literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The reviewed papers indicated that microdosing with LSD and psilocybin leads to changes in neurobiology, physiology, subjective experience, affect, and cognition relative to placebo. We evaluate methodological gaps and challenges in microdosing research and suggest eight reasons why current claims that microdosing is predominately a placebo are premature and possibly wrong: (1) there have been only a small number of controlled studies; (2) studies have had small sample sizes; (3) there is evidence of dose-dependent effects; (4) studies have only investigated the effects of a small number of doses; (5) the doses investigated may have been too small; (6) studies have looked only at non-clinical populations; (7) studies so far have been susceptible to selection bias; and (8) the measured impact of expectancy is small. Considering the available evidence, we conclude that it is not yet possible to determine whether microdosing is a placebo.</p>","PeriodicalId":16892,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"701-711"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11311906/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811241254831","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Some recent research and commentary have suggested that most or all the effects reported by people who microdose psychedelics may be explained by expectations or placebo effects. In this rapid review, we aimed to evaluate the strength of evidence for a placebo explanation of the reported effects of microdosing. We conducted a PubMed search for all studies investigating psychedelic microdosing with controlled doses and a placebo comparator. We identified 19 placebo-controlled microdosing studies and summarised all positive and null findings across this literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials. The reviewed papers indicated that microdosing with LSD and psilocybin leads to changes in neurobiology, physiology, subjective experience, affect, and cognition relative to placebo. We evaluate methodological gaps and challenges in microdosing research and suggest eight reasons why current claims that microdosing is predominately a placebo are premature and possibly wrong: (1) there have been only a small number of controlled studies; (2) studies have had small sample sizes; (3) there is evidence of dose-dependent effects; (4) studies have only investigated the effects of a small number of doses; (5) the doses investigated may have been too small; (6) studies have looked only at non-clinical populations; (7) studies so far have been susceptible to selection bias; and (8) the measured impact of expectancy is small. Considering the available evidence, we conclude that it is not yet possible to determine whether microdosing is a placebo.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
微剂量是安慰剂吗?对低剂量迷幻剂和迷幻药研究的快速回顾。
最近的一些研究和评论认为,服用微量迷幻剂的人所报告的大部分或全部效果都可以用期望或安慰剂效应来解释。在这篇快速综述中,我们旨在评估安慰剂解释所报道的微剂量效果的证据强度。我们在 PubMed 上搜索了所有研究迷幻药微剂量控制剂量和安慰剂参照物的研究。我们确定了 19 项安慰剂对照的微剂量研究,并总结了这些文献中的所有阳性和阴性结果。我们使用科克伦随机试验偏倚风险工具对偏倚风险进行了评估。综述论文表明,与安慰剂相比,使用迷幻剂和迷幻药会导致神经生物学、生理学、主观体验、情感和认知发生变化。我们评估了微剂量研究在方法论上的差距和挑战,并提出了八个原因,说明目前关于微剂量主要是安慰剂的说法为时过早,而且可能是错误的:(1)只有少量的对照研究;(2)研究的样本量较小;(3)有证据表明存在剂量依赖效应;(4)研究只调查了少量剂量的效应;(5)调查的剂量可能太小;(6)研究只调查了非临床人群;(7)迄今为止的研究容易受到选择偏差的影响;(8)预期寿命的影响很小。考虑到现有的证据,我们的结论是,目前还无法确定微剂量是否是一种安慰剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Journal of Psychopharmacology 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
126
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychopharmacology is a fully peer-reviewed, international journal that publishes original research and review articles on preclinical and clinical aspects of psychopharmacology. The journal provides an essential forum for researchers and practicing clinicians on the effects of drugs on animal and human behavior, and the mechanisms underlying these effects. The Journal of Psychopharmacology is truly international in scope and readership.
期刊最新文献
High-dose Vitamin-B6 reduces sensory over-responsivity. Clinical effects of CYP2D6 phenoconversion in patients with psychosis. Influence of panic disorder and paroxetine on brain functional hubs in drug-free patients. Aspirin may be more suitable for patients with major depression: Evidence from two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis. Optimizing the individual dosing of paroxetine in major depressive disorder with therapeutic drug monitoring.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1