From Efficacy to Effectiveness: Evaluating Psychedelic Randomized Controlled Trials for Trustworthy Evidence-Based Policy and Practice
- Author: mycolabadmin
- 4/15/2025
- View Source
Summary
This paper discusses why testing psychedelic therapies in clinical trials is more complicated than testing regular drugs. When people take psychedelics like MDMA or psilocybin, they clearly notice the effects, which makes it hard to keep the study ‘blinded’ (where neither patients nor researchers know who got the real drug). The author argues that for therapies combining drugs with counseling, this actually makes sense because the therapy itself is part of how the treatment works, not just a confounding factor. However, for stand-alone drug use, this unblinding is a real problem that makes it unclear whether the drug or people’s expectations caused the improvement.
Background
Psychedelics have been reappraised in clinical trials during the 21st century following decades of dismissal, with compounds like MDMA and psilocybin showing therapeutic promise. However, regulatory reviews, particularly the FDA’s assessment of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD, have highlighted epistemological and methodological challenges in evaluating efficacy from randomized controlled trials.
Objective
To examine the philosophical assumptions and epistemic premises underlying current RCT-based evidence hierarchies and regulatory frameworks for psychedelic therapies, and to distinguish between efficacy (measured in RCTs) and effectiveness (real-world applicability) to inform trustworthy evidence-based policy and practice.
Results
Single RCTs cannot guarantee unbiased results due to imperfect balance through randomization; blinding frequently fails in psychedelic trials with unblinding rates approaching 100% in experimental groups; the extrapolation fallacy risks inappropriately generalizing efficacy to diverse populations without considering support factors and causal structures.
Conclusion
Trustworthiness of RCT results depends on the type of psychedelic treatment: low for stand-alone drugs due to external validity concerns, but high for psychedelic-assisted (psycho)therapies where therapy is an integral mechanism. Careful assessment of support factors and mechanistic evidence is essential to prevent rejection of effective treatments or medical reversal of approved drugs.
- Published in:Pharmacology Research & Perspectives,
- Study Type:Review,
- Source: PMID: 40230191, DOI: 10.1002/prp2.70097