Psilocybin-Research.comSearchable psilocybin and psilocin bibliometric database.Compare findings
Compare selected psilocybin depression and alcohol-use reports by population, design, sample, endpoint, finding and limitations with original source links.
Free access · No subscription for research tools or data exports
Compare selected original reports
This educational comparison reuses the original annotations in our evidence guides. It is a selected set, not a systematic review or an independently clinically reviewed treatment recommendation. Source-check dates belong to the annotations and do not advance when the page is rebuilt.
| Report and population | Design and sample | Endpoint | Finding | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mertens et al. · EPISODE · 2026 Treatment-resistant depression; two German centers Source checked 2026-10-07 | Phase 2b randomized trial; 25 mg, 5 mg and nicotinamide comparisons with psychotherapy 144 randomized; 142 in the primary efficacy analysis | HAMD17 response at week 6, before the second administration | Primary endpoint not met Primary comparison not significant: response 17.0% with 25 mg versus 10.6% with nicotinamide; adjusted odds ratio 1.73 (95% CI 0.53–6.23), p=0.19. | The first hierarchical test failed; secondary symptom changes are exploratory. Two serious adverse reactions followed 25 mg, including one case of hallucinogen persisting perception disorder. |
| Rucker et al. · NHS feasibility trial · 2026 Treatment-resistant major depression; one NHS site in England Source checked 2026-10-07 | Randomized, double-blind feasibility trial; psilocybin versus placebo with psychological support 60 randomized; 59 completed MADRS at all follow-up visits | Primary outcomes: recruitment, retention and estimation of MADRS variance | Feasibility study Week-3 adjusted MADRS difference −10.41 points (95% CI −14.86 to −5.95), favoring psilocybin; the report describes persistence at week 6. | An encouraging symptom estimate from a feasibility study is not a confirmatory efficacy endpoint. A single site and six-week follow-up limit generalization. |
| Yngwe et al. · Stockholm trial · 2026 Moderate to severe recurrent major depressive disorder Source checked 2026-10-07 | Randomized, double-blind trial; psilocybin versus niacin with five support sessions 35 randomized: 17 psilocybin, 18 niacin | Change in clinician-rated MADRS at day 8; follow-up through day 365 | Primary endpoint met Day-8 difference −7.27 points (95% CI −12.89 to −1.65), p=0.01. The clinician-rated difference was not significant at day 365: −3.68 (95% CI −9.30 to 1.94), p=0.20. | A small sample; later self-reported outcomes are secondary and differ from the clinician-rated endpoint. Two psilocybin participants reported persistent severe anxiety requiring medical attention. |
| Raison et al. · 2023 Major depressive disorder; 11 US research sites Source checked 2026-10-07 | Phase 2 randomized trial; psilocybin versus niacin with psychological support 104 randomized: 51 psilocybin, 53 niacin | Change in centrally rated MADRS from baseline to day 43 | Primary endpoint met Between-group difference −12.3 points (95% CI −17.5 to −7.2), p<0.001, favoring psilocybin. | Six-week follow-up and selected eligibility. Participants using psychotropic medication could enter following taper. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported, but overall and severe adverse events were more frequent with psilocybin. |
| von Rotz et al. · 2023 Major depressive disorder; Zürich, Switzerland Source checked 2026-10-07 | Randomized, double-blind trial; psilocybin versus placebo with psychological support 52 participants; 26 per group | Change in MADRS and Beck Depression Inventory at day 14 | Primary outcomes favored psilocybin Greater symptom reduction with psilocybin; reported MADRS between-group effect size d=0.97, p=0.0011. | The primary assessment was only two weeks after treatment. The selected sample and single-center design do not establish long-term effectiveness in routine care. |
| Goodwin et al. · COMP001 · 2022 Treatment-resistant depression Source checked 2026-10-07 | Phase 2 randomized, double-blind trial; 25 mg and 10 mg compared with 1 mg, with psychological support 233: 79 in the 25 mg group, 75 in the 10 mg group, 79 in the 1 mg group | Change in MADRS at week 3; sustained response assessed through week 12 | 25 mg primary comparison significant 25 mg versus 1 mg: −6.6 MADRS points (95% CI −10.2 to −2.9), p<0.001. The 10 mg comparison was not significant. | Sustained response at week 12 did not support the short-term result. Adverse events occurred in 77%; suicidal ideation, behavior or self-injury occurred across dose groups. This does not establish their cause. |
| Carhart-Harris et al. · 2021 Long-standing, moderate to severe major depressive disorder Source checked 2026-10-07 | Phase 2 randomized trial; psilocybin treatment versus daily escitalopram, with psychological support in both groups 59: 30 assigned psilocybin, 29 escitalopram | Change in self-rated QIDS-SR-16 at week 6 | Primary endpoint not met Primary between-group difference −2.0 points (95% CI −5.0 to 0.9), p=0.17; no statistically significant difference. | Several secondary outcomes favored psilocybin without correction for multiple comparisons. The primary result establishes neither superiority nor equivalence to escitalopram. |
| Davis et al. · 2021 Major depressive disorder; participants not taking antidepressants Source checked 2026-10-07 | Randomized immediate-treatment versus waiting-list trial with supportive psychotherapy 27 randomized; 24 completed treatment and post-session assessments | GRID-HAMD depression ratings at one and four weeks after the intervention | Positive waiting-list comparison Depression ratings were lower in the immediate-treatment group than in the waiting-list group at the corresponding assessments. | A small evaluable sample and a waiting-list comparator. The design does not separate drug effects from expectancy, therapist contact and the treatment setting. |
| Swiss relapse-prevention trial · 2025 Alcohol use disorder following recent withdrawal treatment Source checked 2026-10-07 | Randomized placebo-controlled trial; one supervised session with brief psychotherapy 37 participants in the four-week analysis: 18 psilocybin, 19 placebo | Abstinence and average alcohol consumption at four weeks | Primary comparisons inconclusive Neither primary comparison was significant: abstinence p=0.55; alcohol use p=0.51. Six-month comparisons also showed no significant group difference. | Small sample; a different population, dosing schedule and psychotherapy programme from the 2022 trial. The result does not establish equivalence or rule out a clinically relevant effect. |
| Bogenschutz et al. · 2022 Adults with alcohol dependence; two US academic centres Source checked 2026-10-07 | Randomized trial; two psilocybin or diphenhydramine sessions alongside 12 weeks of psychotherapy 95 randomized; 93 received study medication and entered the primary analysis | Percentage of heavy drinking days across 32 weeks after the first session | Primary endpoint favored psilocybin 9.7% with psilocybin versus 23.6% with active placebo: 13.9 percentage points fewer heavy drinking days (95% CI 3.0–24.7), p=0.01. | Participants could often identify their allocation. Results concern the combined supervised intervention and selected participants, not psilocybin alone or every person with alcohol use disorder. |
| Bogenschutz et al. · 2015 pilot Ten volunteers with alcohol dependence Source checked 2026-10-07 | Single-group proof-of-concept study; supervised sessions with motivational and preparatory therapy 10 volunteers; no randomized comparison group | Drinking and abstinence over treatment and follow-up | Preliminary uncontrolled finding The investigators observed increased abstinence after dosing, with gains broadly maintained through 36 weeks. | Without a concurrent control, improvement cannot be attributed specifically to psilocybin. This preliminary report supported further trials rather than confirming efficacy. |
11 reports shown