STAT+: FDA to speed up review of three psychedelics as mental health treatments
The Food and Drug Administration will accelerate its review of psychedelic drugs developed by Compass Pathways, the Usona Institute, and Transcend Therapeutics for mental health disorders, as part of the Trump administration’s plan to boost access to the controversial yet promising medications.
The agency will grant priority review vouchers specifically to Compass’ psilocybin product for treatment-resistant depression, Usona’s similar medicine for major depressive disorder, and an MDMA-like treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder from Transcend.
The FDA identified the medications receiving the vouchers, but not the companies developing them. Compass, Usona, and Transcend confirmed they received vouchers.
Impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields exposure on sleep quality and mental health in a Tunisian power plant: a cross-sectional study
Psychedelics get a boost from the White House
President Trump recently signed an executive order which aims to increase access to psychedelic drug treatments. He was joined at the signing by podcaster Joe Rogan, who said he’ ha’d messaged the president about research on the psychedelic ibogaine.
In this week’s STATus Report, host Alex Hogan chats with STAT Washington correspondent Daniel Payne about what the executive order does and doesn’t do. Hogan also looks at why ibogaine, and psychedelic drugs more broadly, are increasingly being taken seriously for stubbornly hard-to-treat conditions like addiction, depression, and PTSD.
Cyclothymic and anxious affective temperament in perinatal depression: findings from an exploratory cross-sectional study
Growth, Empowerment, and Mindfulness (GEM): A Mindfulness-based Intervention to Address Mental Health in Young Adults With Early Life Adversity
Interventions: Behavioral: Growth, Empowerment, and Mindfulness (GEM)
Sponsors: Brown University
Recruiting
Effectiveness of a Fully Automated Mobile Therapeutic Versus a General Chatbot in Reducing Depression and Anxiety and Improving Well-Being: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Background: Given the increasing prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders and enduring barriers to care, there is a critical need for alternative treatment options. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots show promise for increasing access to mental health care, though more direct research is needed to establish their efficacy. Objective: This pilot study aimed to test the efficacy of a generative mental health chatbot rooted in solution-focused therapy compared to the general-purpose ChatGPT and an assessment-only control (AOC) group on depression, anxiety, and well-being. Methods: A total of 185 English-speaking adults were recruited online and randomly assigned to one of three groups: AI therapy, ChatGPT, or AOC. Of these, 147 eligible participants filled out a pretreatment assessment. Over a 3-week period, the AI therapy group (n=44) was instructed to complete 3 structured, fully automated app-based sessions per week (9 total), while the ChatGPT group (n=60) was instructed to engage in 9 unstructured conversations with ChatGPT (GPT-4o–based models). The control group (n=43) received no intervention. In the AI therapy group, 39% (n=17) completed all sessions, as did 62% (n=38) of those in the ChatGPT group. Primary outcome measures, self-assessed online at baseline and postintervention, included the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS) (depression), 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (anxiety), and World Health Organization Well-Being Index (5-item version) (well-being). Linear mixed effects models were used for data analysis. Results: Compared to AOC, both the AI therapy group (=−0.47; =.01) and the ChatGPT group (=−0.44; =.02) demonstrated significant reductions in depression scores measured by PHQ-9. The AI therapy group showed nonsignificant reductions in anxiety (=−0.37; =.11) and ODSIS depression scores (=−0.25; =.22) and an increase in well-being (=0.12; =.53) compared to AOC. Similarly, a nonsignificant reduction in anxiety (=−0.27; =.22) and ODSIS depression scores (=−0.12; =.53) and an increase in well-being (=0.20; =.29) were observed in the ChatGPT group compared to AOC. The AI therapy group did not significantly outperform the ChatGPT group on any outcomes (PHQ-9: =−0.19; =0.03; =.87; 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale: =−0.57; =−0.11; =.62; ODSIS: =−0.59; =−0.13; =.50; and WHO: =−0.38; =−0.07; =.69). Conclusions: Both the structured generative AI chatbot and ChatGPT showed a significant reduction in depression scores compared to the control group. No significant effects were observed across other outcomes, although descriptive trends indicated improvements in anxiety. While the AI therapy group showed descriptively better outcomes for depression and anxiety, differences between groups were not significant. A larger sample and longer intervention may be needed for the emerging trends to yield clinically meaningful effect sizes. Trial Registration: OSF Registries osf.io/r76ef;
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/79f5e531de1d0b2de861e05b715c91f7" />

