GM-200X

Psychedelic compounds, including psilocybin, LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), DMT (N,N -dimethyltryptamine), and 5-MeO-DMT (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), all of which are serotonin 2A receptor agonists, are being investigated as potential treatments. This review aims to summarize the current clinical research on these 4 compounds and mescaline to guide future research. Their mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety were reviewed. While evidence for therapeutic indications, with the exception of psilocybin for depression, is still relatively scarce, we noted no differences in psychedelic effects beyond effect duration. Therefore, it remains unclear whether different receptor profiles contribute to the therapeutic potential of these compounds. More research is needed to differentiate these compounds in order to inform which compounds might be best for different therapeutic uses.

The renewed interest in psychedelic research provides growing evidence of potentially unique effects on various aspects of reward processing systems. Using the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework, as proposed by the National Institute of Mental Health, we aim to synthesize the existing literature concerning the impact of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on the RDoC's Positive Valence Systems (PVS) domain, and to identify potential avenues for further research.

Two LSD-related terms (lysergic acid diethylamide and LSD) and 13 PVS-related terms (reward, happiness, bliss, motivation, reinforcement learning, operant, conditioning, satisfaction, decision making, habit, valence, affect, mood) were used to search electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, and Web of Science for relevant articles. A manual search of the reference list resulted in nine additional articles. After screening, articles and data were evaluated and included based on their relevance to the objective of investigating the effects of LSD on the PVS. Articles and data were excluded if they did not provide information about the PVS, were observational in nature, lacked comparators or reference groups, or were duplicates. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation (NTP OHAT) risk of bias (RoB) tool. Data from the included articles were collected and structured based on the RDoC bio-behavioral matrix, specifically focusing on the PVS domain and its three constituent constructs: reward responsiveness, reward learning, and reward valuation.

We reviewed 28 clinical studies with 477 participants. Lysergic acid diethylamide, assessed at self-report (23 studies), molecular (5 studies), circuit (4 studies), and paradigm (3 studies) levels, exhibited dose-dependent mood improvement (20 short-term and 3 long-term studies). The subjective and neural effects of LSD were linked to the 5-HT_2A receptor (molecular). Animal studies (14 studies) suggested LSD could mildly reinforce conditioned place preference without aversion and reduce responsiveness to other rewards. Findings on reward learning were inconsistent but hinted at potential associative learning enhancements. Reward valuation measures indicated potential reductions in effort expenditure for other reinforcers.

Our findings are consistent with our previous work, which indicated classical psychedelics, primarily serotonin 2A receptor agonists, enhanced reward responsiveness in healthy individuals and patient populations. Lysergic acid diethylamide exhibits a unique profile in the reward learning and valuation constructs. Using the RDoC-based framework, we identified areas for future research, enhancing our understanding of the impact of LSD on reward processing. However, applying RDoC to psychedelic research faces limitations due to diverse study designs that were not initially RDoC-oriented. Limitations include subjective outcome measure selection aligned with RDoC constructs and potential bias in synthesizing varied studies. Additionally, some human studies were open-label, introducing potential bias compared to randomized, blinded studies.