Disruptive Psychopharmacology 303112183X, 9783031121838

Citation preview

Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences 56

Frederick S. Barrett Katrin H. Preller   Editors

Disruptive Psychopharmacology

Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences Volume 56

Series Editors Mark A. Geyer, Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA Charles A. Marsden, Queen’s Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Bart A. Ellenbroek, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand Thomas R. E. Barnes, The Centre for Mental Health, Imperial College London, London, UK Susan L. Andersen, Harvard Medical School, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA Martin P. Paulus, Laureate Institute for Brain Research, Tulsa, OK, USA

Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences provides critical and comprehensive discussions of the most significant areas of behavioral neuroscience research, written by leading international authorities. Each volume in the series represents the most informative and contemporary account of its subject available, making it an unrivalled reference source. Each volume will be made available in both print and electronic form. With the development of new methodologies for brain imaging, genetic and genomic analyses, molecular engineering of mutant animals, novel routes for drug delivery, and sophisticated cross-species behavioral assessments, it is now possible to study behavior relevant to psychiatric and neurological diseases and disorders on the physiological level. The Behavioral Neurosciences series focuses on translational medicine and cutting-edge technologies. Preclinical and clinical trials for the development of new diagnostics and therapeutics as well as prevention efforts are covered whenever possible. Special attention is also drawn on epigenetical aspects, especially in psychiatric disorders. CTBN series is indexed in PubMed and Scopus. Founding Editors: Emeritus Professor Mark A. Geyer Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, USA Emeritus Professor Charles A. Marsden Institute of Neuroscience, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham Medical School Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK Professor Bart A. Ellenbroek School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Frederick S. Barrett • Katrin H. Preller Editors

Disruptive Psychopharmacology

Editors Frederick S. Barrett Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore, MD, USA

Katrin H. Preller Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics Psychiatric University Hospital Zürich, University of Zurich Zürich, Switzerland

ISSN 1866-3370 ISSN 1866-3389 (electronic) Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences ISBN 978-3-031-12183-8 ISBN 978-3-031-12184-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12184-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Until recently, the modal treatment of many psychiatric disorders was defined by one or a combination of daily pharmacotherapy and various forms of structured or unstructured psychotherapy. While these approaches have been met with some success, many current psychiatric pharmacotherapies have modest effect sizes, undesirable side effects, and variable patient adherence. Many patients also remain refractory to treatment in many symptom domains. Hence, more effective therapies are urgently needed. New therapeutic approaches that harness the power of psychedelic drugs are gaining traction as potential treatments for a wide range of indications. The structure and delivery of psychedelic therapies represent a sharp departure from more traditional models of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy that have defined the treatment of psychiatric and other medical disorders. In the case of ketamine, patients may undergo weekly exposure to this psychoactive compound rather than chronic daily dosing that is encountered with standard pharmacotherapy (e.g., with a monoaminergic reuptake inhibitor). In the case of serotonergic psychedelics, a therapeutic approach may consist of careful volunteer preparation followed by 1–3 psilocybin administrations under closely monitored, controlled conditions. These departures from the standard psychiatric model may be critical to the success of psychedelic therapies. In this way, psychedelic therapies represent a type of disruptive technology that is emerging within the field of psychiatry and which may have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of psychiatric disorders. The current volume consists of a series of monographs from thought-leaders across a range of areas that together provide a comprehensive snapshot of the state of the science of these disruptive psychopharmacological approaches. In the first section, the authors introduce perspectives on the approaches to determining appropriate dosing with psychedelics, conducting group psychedelic therapy, and the training of psychedelic therapists. The authors also discuss the literature on the effects of setting on psychedelic experiences. In the second section, targeted chapters review the growing literature supporting the use of ayahuasca, psilocybin, and

v

vi

Preface

ketamine for the treatment of mood disorders. The authors also address the use of psychedelic therapies for palliative care and the treatment of end-of-life distress. In the final section, the authors review emerging data and provide theoretical perspectives on the treatment of substance use disorders, inflammation, obsessive compulsive, trauma-related, neurodegenerative, headache, and chronic pain disorders. Together, the chapters in this volume serve to summarize the state of the science of safety and efficacy of psychedelic therapies, introduce theoretical models and approaches to psychedelic therapies, and provide a roadmap to the disruptive psychopharmacology of psychedelic drugs. We want to thank all authors and reviewers who have contributed their expertise to this volume. The list of reviewers includes in alphabetical order: Dr. Brian Anderson Dr. Alan Davis Dr. Patrick Finan Dr. Fernando Goes Dr. Peter Hendricks Dr. Marcus Herdener Dr. Andrea Jungaberle Dr. Henrik Jungaberle Lea Mertens, M.Sc. Dr. Stewart Mostofsky Dr. Gerald Nestadt Dr. David Nichols Dr. Lorenzo Pasquini Dr. Timo Schmidt Dr. Luís Fernando Tófoli Dr. Harriet de Wit Additionally, we would like to thank the series editors, in particular Dr. Mark Geyer, for their support. Baltimore, MD, USA Zürich, Switzerland

Frederick S. Barrett Katrin H. Preller

Contents

Part I

Models and Approaches

Dosing Psychedelics and MDMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Matthias E. Liechti and Friederike Holze

3

Psychedelic Group Therapy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Gasser

23

Effects of Setting on Psychedelic Experiences, Therapies, and Outcomes: A Rapid Scoping Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . Tasha L. Golden, Susan Magsamen, Clara C. Sandu, Shuyang Lin, Grace Marie Roebuck, Kathy M. Shi, and Frederick S. Barrett Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy for Social Adaptability in Autistic Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Danforth Foundations for Training Psychedelic Therapists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Janis Phelps and James Henry Part II

35

71 93

Disruptive Psychopharmacology for Mood Disorders

Ayahuasca for the Treatment of Depression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Fernanda Palhano-Fontes, Bruno Lobão Soares, Nicole Leite Galvão-Coelho, Emerson Arcoverde, and Draulio B. Araujo Psilocybin for the Treatment of Depression: A Promising New Pharmacotherapy Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Gabrielle Agin-Liebes and Alan K. Davis

vii

viii

Contents

Ketamine for Depression: Advances in Clinical Treatment, Rapid Antidepressant Mechanisms of Action, and a Contrast with Serotonergic Psychedelics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Marina Kojic, Johan Saelens, Bashkim Kadriu, Carlos A. Zarate Jr, and Christoph Kraus The Potential of Psychedelics for End of Life and Palliative Care . . . . . . 169 David B. Yaden, Sandeep M. Nayak, Natalie Gukasyan, Brian T. Anderson, and Roland R. Griffiths Part III

Disruptive Psychopharmacology for Other Disorders

Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy for Substance Use Disorders and Potential Mechanisms of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Nathalie M. Rieser, Marcus Herdener, and Katrin H. Preller Classic Psychedelics in Addiction Treatment: The Case for Psilocybin in Tobacco Smoking Cessation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Matthew W. Johnson Psychedelics and Anti-inflammatory Activity in Animal Models . . . . . . . 229 Thomas W. Flanagan and Charles D. Nichols Psilocybin for the Treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders . . . . . . 247 Katja Ehrmann, John J. B. Allen, and Francisco A. Moreno Psychedelics in the Treatment of Headache and Chronic Pain Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Emmanuelle A. D. Schindler Psychedelics as Novel Therapeutics in Alzheimer’s Disease: Rationale and Potential Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Albert Garcia-Romeu, Sean Darcy, Hillary Jackson, Toni White, and Paul Rosenberg Psilocybin for Trauma-Related Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Amanda J. Khan, Ellen Bradley, Aoife O’Donovan, and Joshua Woolley

Part I

Models and Approaches

Dosing Psychedelics and MDMA Matthias E. Liechti and Friederike Holze

Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Pharmaceutical Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Psychedelic (Full) Doses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Personalized Dosing and Pharmacogenetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Microdosing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 4 6 10 13 16 16

Abstract Classic psychedelics, including psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), dimethyltryptamine, and mescaline, and entactogens/empathogens, especially 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, have received renewed attention in psychiatric research and may be developed into medications for such indications as anxiety, depression, cluster headache, and posttraumatic stress disorder, among others. However, identifying proper doses is crucial. Controlled study data on dosing using well-characterized pharmaceutical formulations of the substances are scarce. The dose equivalence of different substances, dose-response effects, and subjective effects of different doses are of great interest and practically important for their clinical use in psychotherapy. Furthermore, the so-called microdosing of psychedelics has recently gained popularity, and the first placebo-controlled studies of LSD have been published. This chapter discusses different aspects of psychedelic dosing, including pharmaceutical aspects, definitions and characteristics of different doses, including microdoses, aspects of personalized dosing, and non-pharmacological factors, that can influence the response to psychedelics.

M. E. Liechti (*) and F. Holze Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Biomedicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Curr Topics Behav Neurosci (2022) 56: 3–22 https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2021_270 Published Online: 4 November 2021

3

4

M. E. Liechti and F. Holze

Keywords Dosing · Ego-dissolution dose · Good effect dose · Microdosing · Personalized medicine · Pharmacogenetics

1 Introduction Classic psychedelics, such as psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), dimethyltryptamine (DMT), and mescaline, have seen a renaissance in psychiatric research. Notably, psilocybin, LSD, and DMT are currently under rigorous investigation for use as adjuncts in psychedelic-assisted therapy for several disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders (Gasser et al. 2015; Davis et al. 2020; Johnson et al. 2014; Carhart-Harris et al. 2016a; Griffiths et al. 2016; Bogenschutz et al. 2015). The focus of researchers goes beyond psychiatric disorders, exploring their potential use to treat cluster headaches and migraine (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03341689, NCT03781128). Furthermore, 3,4,methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is currently under investigation for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (Mithoefer et al. 2010, 2019). Among the group of classic psychedelics, psilocybin is to date the most widely investigated substance in patients, with also several academic studies in healthy subjects (Hirschfeld and Schmidt 2021). Several modern Phase 1 and 2 studies have been conducted over recent years to investigate psilocybin dosing (Brown et al. 2017; Griffiths et al. 2011; Kraehenmann et al. 2017a; Preller and Vollenweider 2018; Madsen et al. 2019; Hasler et al. 2004; Hirschfeld and Schmidt 2021; GarciaRomeu et al. 2021). However, despite increasing work in patients, scarce pharmacokinetic data on psilocybin are available (Kolaczynska et al. 2020; Madsen et al. 2019; Brown et al. 2017), with a lack of solid dose-finding studies using different doses of psilocybin within the same study (Hirschfeld and Schmidt 2021). The pharmacokinetics and dose-response characteristics of LSD are better defined (Holze et al. 2019, 2021a, b; Dolder et al. 2017). MDMA has been studied relatively extensively in the healthy population and in the therapeutic setting (Vizeli and Liechti 2017; Vollenweider et al. 1998, 1999; Parrott 2014; Mithoefer et al. 2010, 2018, 2019), including pharmacokinetics, safety pharmacology, and dosing (Studerus et al. 2021; Vizeli et al. 2017, 2019; Vizeli and Liechti 2017; Schmid et al. 2016).

2 Pharmaceutical Aspects The majority of psychedelic substance use is non-medical and includes recreational, spiritual, or other types of non-controlled use. In these settings, the doses are generally not well-defined, and substance preparations may also not be stable over time compared with drugs that are dosed as pharmaceuticals. This means that the true

Dosing Psychedelics and MDMA

5

dose is unknown in most cases. Additionally, natural products that contain psilocybin or DMT may be used, in which case the amount of active substance is also unknown. In the case of synthetic substances, such as LSD, often unclear is whether the reportedly used doses refer to the active substance (i.e., LSD base) or a typically used salt, such as LSD tartrate. However, even when psychedelics are used in research studies, the doses that are administered to subjects are often unknown or reported with insufficient details to be defined. For example, LSD may be used as LSD base or salt. If the tartrate salt is used, then it may be LSD 1:1 tartrate or LSD 2:1 tartrate and may contain additional amounts of crystal water, methanol solvate, or other solvents. Thus, correct dosing information requires that the type of substance that is used is indicated, together with the estimated or measured content of active substance. Specifically, pure LSD 1:1 and LSD 2:1 tartrate contains 68% and 81% active LSD base, respectively. Thus, a 1 μg dose unit of LSD base that is used by some researchers (Holze et al. 2019, 2020, 2021a, b; Hutten et al. 2020b; CarhartHarris et al. 2016b; Yanakieva et al. 2020, 2019; Family et al. 2020) would correspond to 1.46 or 1.23 μg of LSD 1:1 or 2:1 tartrate salt, respectively, as used by other researchers (Bershad et al. 2019, 2020; Family et al. 2020; Yanakieva et al. 2019). However, the true identity of the salt and content of active substance may be unclear because the necessary tests to discern such information (e.g., highperformance liquid chromatography and nuclear magnetic resonance identification of the molecule that validly and analytically measures content uniformity in 10 samples) and stability data over the length of the full storage or study period may be unavailable. Furthermore, such substances as LSD and psilocybin may decompose over time, and the content of pharmaceutically active substance may thus be lower than initially thought (Holze et al. 2019). For example, LSD is inactivated to iso-LSD, depending on temperature, solvent, and pH, and may be unstable in certain formulations. Other stress factors, such as light, oxygen, and chlorine in tap water, may lead to decomposition of the LSD molecule. In fact, amounts of iso-LSD were detected in plasma from research subjects in one of our studies that used LSD in capsules (Mueller et al. 2017a, b; Dolder et al. 2016), indicating that approximately 30% of the LSD that was administered likely isomerized to inactive iso-LSD within the LSD capsules that were used (Steuer et al. 2017). Later pharmacokinetic studies that used validly defined doses and a novel liquid formulation of LSD (Holze et al. 2019, 2021b) indicated that the previous studies that used capsules had actually used 70 and 140 μg LSD base rather than the reported oral doses of 100 and 200 μg LSD base (Mueller et al. 2017a, b; Dolder et al. 2016; Preller et al. 2018, 2019; Barrett et al. 2018; Preller et al. 2017; Kraehenmann et al. 2017a, b; Schmid et al. 2015). Additionally, particularly in the case of not yet well-defined substance formulations, plasma concentrations of the psychoactive substance could provide a measure of the compound that actually arrives in the body, thereby accounting for dosing, bioavailability, and even interindividual differences in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. Plasma concentrations can also help compare formulations and substance exposure between different studies and different research groups and thus should be generated for each novel substance formulation. In the future, correct

6

M. E. Liechti and F. Holze

dose identification will likely benefit from the increasing use of investigational medicinal products that are produced according to Good Manufacturing Practice.

3 Psychedelic (Full) Doses Psychedelics are psychoactive substances. The goal of substance-assisted psychotherapy is typically to induce a “good trip” or psychedelic experience that is characterized by mainly positively experienced subjective drug effects, including the induction of positive emotions and pleasurable alterations of the mind and perception. A positive acute response is associated with a more favorable longterm therapeutic outcome (Roseman et al. 2017; Griffiths et al. 2016; Ross et al. 2016). Doses that produce the full range of the psychedelic experience are termed full psychedelic effect doses, ego-dissolution doses, or experiential doses (Holze et al. 2021b), in contrast to “microdoses” or “minidoses” that induce no or only minimal acute subjective effects (Kuypers et al. 2019; Holze et al. 2021a, b). Negative subjective effects in the context of full doses (i.e., “bad trips”) are sometimes called “challenging experiences” to indicate that they may have partly personal or therapeutic value (Barrett et al. 2016) rather than being exclusively untoward drug effects. Generally, negative subjective drug effects are less desired and likely more frequent in non-therapeutic settings and vulnerable individuals (Barrett et al. 2017). More pronounced acute negative drug effects, including anxiety or panic, are generally undesired. Negative effects may either occur at very high doses as suggested by a dose-response study that used LSD (Holze et al. 2021b) or be less dependent on the dose within the dose range that is currently used as indicated by an analysis of many studies that used psilocybin (Hirschfeld and Schmidt 2021). The types of experiences that are induced by psychoactive substances depend on the specific substance and dose that are used. Different groups of substances have relatively similar subjective effects within the group, but clear distinctions manifest between groups, largely independent of the doses that are used. Specifically, effects of MDMA and MDMA-like entactogens or empathogens are distinct from classic serotonergic psychedelics, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, and also distinct from pure stimulants, such as D-amphetamine and methamphetamine (Holze et al. 2020). Already at relatively moderate doses, classic psychedelics clearly induce stronger alterations of mind, including greater ego-dissolution and perceptual alterations (e.g., changes in the perception of time, space, and the self) than relatively high doses of MDMA or pure stimulants. Classic psychedelics are also more likely to induce anxiety than MDMA (Holze et al. 2020), whereas MDMA is more likely than classic psychedelics to produce a state of predominant well-being, relaxation, talkativeness, and feelings of love and trust in the absence of fear ((Holze et al. 2020; Hysek et al. 2014); Fig. 1). In addition to the substance that is used, the dose strength of the substance clearly alters both the intensity and quality of the acute experience, particularly in the case of classic psychedelics. For example, dose-acute response characteristics have been well-studied for LSD in healthy subjects (Holze et al. 2021b). Healthy participants

Fig. 1 Subjective and autonomic effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD; 100 μg LSD base), 3,4,-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA; 125 mg MDMA hydrochloride), amphetamine (40 mg D-amphetamine sulfate), and corresponding placebo. The study used a double-blind within-subjects design. Doses of all active substances were equivalent with regard to autonomic stimulation reflected by the rate pressure product (RPP). The psychedelic LSD produced significantly greater ratings of “any drug effect,” “good drug effect,” “bad drug effect,” and particularly “ego-dissolution” compared with the entactogen/

Dosing Psychedelics and MDMA 7

8

M. E. Liechti and F. Holze

Fig. 2 Acute dose-dependent subjective effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). LSD (25–200 μg) or placebo was administered at t ¼ 0 h in 16 healthy participants in a counterbalanced order using a double-blind cross-over study design (Holze et al. 2021b). LSD dosedependently induced good drug effects, with a maximum effect at the 100 μg dose. The 200 μg dose of LSD did not further increase good drug effects or drug liking compared with the 100 μg dose, but it further increased ego-dissolution compared with the 100 μg dose. The data are expressed as the mean
SEM. The figure was modified from Holze et al. (2021b). Table 1 shows corresponding maximal effects and effect duration values for “any drug effects”

were administered different single doses of 25, 50, 100, and 200 μg LSD (LSD base doses) or placebo on different treatment days using a random-order, counter-balanced, within-subjects design in a controlled setting. As expected, LSD produced subjective effects that increased in intensity with increasing doses. The dosedependence of the LSD response is shown in Fig. 2. Typically, the relationship between the dose and effect of a drug is not linear but rather according to a maximum effect curve, in which subjective effects were minimal at the 25 μg dose. At the 50 μg dose, LSD produced approximately half-maximal effects that were overall positive, with high ratings of drug liking and no negative effects. However, ratings of psychedelic-typical ego-dissolution only amounted to approximately 20% of the scale maximum. At the 100 μg dose, LSD produced greater good drug effect ratings and only minimally greater drug liking than the 50 μg dose, but ratings of ego-dissolution further increased to approximately 40% of the scale maximum. Finally, the full 200 μg dose induced substantial ego-dissolution, with ratings in the range of 60% over several hours. However, good drug effects and drug liking

Fig. 1 (continued) empathogen MDMA and pure stimulant D-amphetamine. MDMA and D-amphetamine increased ratings of “talkative” compared with LSD. Only LSD altered “sense of time” compared with placebo. MDMA produced moderately greater ratings of “any drug effect,” “good drug effect,” and “ego-dissolution” compared with D-amphetamine. The data are expressed as mean
SEM in 28 healthy volunteers. The figure was modified from Holze et al. (2020)

Dosing Psychedelics and MDMA

9

Table 1 Subjective effect intensity and duration after different doses of LSD Effect Maximal effect (%)

25 μg LSD 17
11 (0–37)

50 μg LSD 46
21 (7–86)

Time to maximal effect (h) Time to onset (h)

2.8
0.8 (1.8– 4.9) 1.0
0.4 (0.6– 1.8) 7.7
2.1 (5.0– 12.6) 6.7
2.0 (4.3– 12)

2.4
0.6 (1.6– 3.3) 0.7
0.2 (0.4– 1.2) 8.1
2.3 (4.9– 13) 7.4
2.3 (4.4– 12)

Time to offset (h) Effect duration (h)

100 μg LSD 76
21 (13– 97) 2.6
1.1 (1.3– 6.5) 0.6
0.2 (0.4– 0.9) 8.9
3.0 (5.8– 18) 8.3
2.9 (5.0– 18)

200 μg LSD 76
26 (7–98) 2.2
0.9 (1.3– 5.1) 0.4
0.2 (0.1– 0.9) 11
4.9 (6.3– 22) 11
5.0 (5.6– 22)

Parameters are for “any drug effects” as predicted by pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling. The threshold to determine times to onset and offset was set individually at 10% of the individual maximal response. Values are mean
SD (range). Taken from Holze et al. (2021a, b)

Table 2 Dose comparison of different substances

Subthreshold or microdoses Low dose/minidose Intermediate/good effect dose High/ego-dissolution dose

LSDa [μg]