MDMA-Assisted Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial Incremental Effects Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Mental illness poses a substantial global burden, yet existing psychotherapies and psychopharmacologies often produce limited outcomes. Psychedelic-assisted therapies have re-emerged as potential transdiagnostic interventions. In particular, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine–assisted therapy (MDMA-AT) has generated interest for its rapid psychological effects and potential to enhance psychotherapy outcomes. However, the incremental efficacy of MDMA-AT relative to control interventions across transdiagnostic outcomes remains unclear. Further, there have been emerging concerns regarding harm reporting quality in MDMA-AT clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of MDMA-AT randomized controlled trials. Eleven publications representing eight controlled trials with 10 analyzed subgroups ( n = 295 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Two additional secondary publications were included for harm reporting syntheses ( k = 13 total). Across 114 extracted effect sizes, MDMA-AT demonstrated a significant moderate-to-large incremental reduction in psychopathology relative to controls (g = 1.03, 95% CI [0.46, 1.60]), though heterogeneity was high (I² = 76%). Incremental effects were larger versus inert placebos (g = 1.27) than active controls (g = 0.75). Symptom-specific analyses indicated strong incremental effects for trauma reduction (g=1.46 [95% CI: 0.67, 2.25]) and smaller non-significant effects for depression (g=0.51 [95% CI: −0.06, 1.08]). Harm reporting quality synthesis showed only 23% of publications met high-quality reporting standards. Overall, MDMA-AT demonstrates potential transdiagnostic efficacy, but small samples, confounding factors, and mediocre harm reporting highlight the need for larger more transparent clinical trials.

Article activity feed