Eligibility and program fit

Learning Objectives

By the end of this module, the trainee will be able to:

• State what an eligibility determination is and how it differs from the readiness read of Criterion 1 and the coexisting-conditions review of Criterion 2, while depending on both.
• Integrate psychological, social, physiological, and pharmacological findings into a single admission decision that is defensible on its written reasoning.
• Distinguish client-level eligibility from program-level fit, and recognize when a person appropriate for psychedelic work is not appropriate for a specific program.
• Describe how inclusion and exclusion criteria are constructed in the clinical trial literature, and use that structure as a model for a program's own written criteria.
• Identify the exclusions that recur across trials, and separate the ones grounded in a specific safety mechanism from the ones that reflect trial design rather than settled clinical necessity.
• Treat eligibility as time-dependent, and frame a not-yet decision as a sequenced path with concrete conditions rather than a rejection.
• Produce a documented eligibility determination with its rationale, its conditions, and its next steps.

Key Terms

Eligibility determination. The integrative decision about whether a specific person should be admitted to a specific program at a specific time, formed by synthesizing the readiness read (Criterion 1) and the coexisting-conditions review (Criterion 2) against the program's defined scope.

Inclusion criteria. The conditions a person must meet to be admitted, for example a qualifying diagnosis, an age range, or a demonstrated level of preparation. In the trial literature, these are specified in advance and applied consistently (Goodwin et al., 2022).

Exclusion criteria. The conditions that disqualify a person from admission, for example, a personal or first-degree family history of a primary psychotic disorder, or a clinically significant suicide risk. Trials specify these in advance to protect participants (Goodwin et al., 2022; Carhart-Harris et al., 2021).

Client-level eligibility. Whether a person is appropriate for psychedelic work at all, given their readiness and coexisting conditions.

Program-level fit. Whether this particular program, given its scope, medical capacity, and staffing, can safely hold this particular person. A person can clear client-level eligibility and still fail program-level fit.

Scope of the program. The defined range of clients, conditions, and situations a program is designed, staffed, and equipped to serve. Eligibility is meaningful only relative to a stated scope.

Sequenced deferral. A decision that a person is not eligible now but may become eligible after defined preparation or stabilization, paired with concrete conditions and a path back, rather than a permanent refusal.

Eligibility documentation. The written record of the determination, its rationale across all domains, any conditions attached, and the next steps, which provides continuity of care, transparency, and a defensible account of the decision.

Core Teaching

What an eligibility determination is

Criteria 1 and 2 gather information. Criterion 3 decides with it. Readiness screening reads a person across psychological, social, and physiological domains and their timing. The coexisting-conditions review detects the medical, psychiatric, and pharmacological factors that alter risk and routes them. Eligibility is the step that integrates both into a single answer to a single question: should this person be admitted to this program at this time? The determination is not a new assessment layered on top of the first two. It is the disciplined synthesis of what they found, weighed against what this program can actually hold.

The question has three parts, and each one can independently change the answer. Is this person appropriate for psychedelic work at all? Is this program the right container for them? Is now the right time? A person can pass the first and fail the second, or pass the first two and fail the third. Treating eligibility as a single yes or no, rather than as these three conjoined judgments, is the most common way the determination goes wrong.

Integrating the screening data

Eligibility is determined by synthesis, not by any one finding. A person with stable, well-supported depression and no interacting medications, who has protected time for integration, is a straightforward inclusion; depression is among the conditions in which supervised psychedelic therapy has shown benefit (Davis et al., 2021; Gukasyan et al., 2022). A person with current untreated mania needs psychiatric evaluation and stabilization before the proposed session. The reasoning is the current clinical state and the intervention’s evidence, rather than one serotonergic mechanism assigned to every compound (Johnson, Richards, & Griffiths, 2008; Bahji et al., 2021). Most real determinations sit between these poles, where a strength in one domain has to be weighed against a caution in another. The facilitator's task is to hold the whole picture rather than fixate on a single variable, and to state in writing how the domains were weighed to reach the decision. A determination that cannot be defended on its written reasoning is not a determination; it is a preference.

How eligibility criteria are actually built: the trial model

Facilitators do not have to invent eligibility logic from scratch, because the clinical trials have already built and published it, and their structure is a usable model even for programs operating outside a research setting. Trials specify inclusion and exclusion criteria in advance and apply them consistently, which is what makes an eligibility decision auditable rather than arbitrary. The phase 2 trial of single-dose psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression, for example, enrolled adults with treatment-resistant depression and excluded, among others, people with a personal or first-degree family history of specified psychotic and bipolar-I conditions, current mania, and a clinically significant suicide risk (Goodwin et al., 2022). The trial comparing psilocybin with escitalopram used similar logic, excluding an immediate-family or personal history of psychosis, a history of serious suicide attempts, and medically significant conditions that a physician judged made a person unsuitable (Carhart-Harris et al., 2021).

The transferable lesson is structural. Good eligibility criteria are defined before the client arrives, written down, grounded where possible in a stated reason, and applied the same way to everyone. A program that decides eligibility case by case, without written criteria, invites both inconsistency and bias. Writing the criteria in advance is itself a safety practice, and drafting a program's inclusion and exclusion list is one of the core competencies this criterion trains.

Which exclusions are mechanism-grounded, and which are trial artifacts

An eligibility framework distinguishes documented hazards, plausible mechanisms, unresolved risks, and research protocol choices. Active mania, psychosis, or acute suicide risk requires clinical assessment before the proposed session; a stable personal or family history needs compound specific psychiatric review. Many classic psychedelic trials exclude psychotic or bipolar histories, but an exclusion criterion does not establish a universal biological mechanism or an individual event rate (Johnson, Richards, & Griffiths, 2008). Medication exclusions also require specificity. MAO inhibition plus serotonin release or reuptake inhibition can substantially increase serotonin toxicity risk. Psilocybin or LSD plus an MAOI has limited evidence and requires review without assuming this same toxicity mechanism. DMT metabolism, 5 MeO DMT toxicity, MDMA release, ibogaine repolarization, and ketamine sedation or blood pressure concerns belong in separate assessments (Malcolm & Thomas, 2022; Sarparast et al., 2022; Bahji et al., 2021).

Research exclusions can reduce avoidable risk and uncertainty, protect study validity, or narrow the population being investigated. They should be recorded as protocol choices with their rationale and evidence. Personal and family psychiatric histories are not interchangeable, and stable history is not the same as an active episode. A program may appropriately retain a conservative exclusion because of its intervention, staffing, monitoring, or referral capacity, while acknowledging that it is a program boundary rather than a proven universal contraindication. Family history of bipolar disorder is an example where the evidence and rationale deserve specific consideration (Downey et al., 2024). Current SSRI treatment does not constitute a universal pharmacological requirement for discontinuation before psilocybin. SSRIs may alter subjective psychedelic effects, tolerability, or therapeutic response in some individuals, and the available evidence remains incomplete. Decisions regarding continuation, tapering, or discontinuation should consider the specific medication, indication, duration of use, withdrawal risk, psychiatric stability, psychedelic being considered, and treatment setting. Prescription medication changes should be directed by the prescribing clinician. Controlled escitalopram pretreatment data and a small open label continued SSRI study do not prove safety for every medication or patient. An exploratory post hoc discontinuation analysis cannot establish that stopping treatment caused a poorer outcome (Becker et al., 2022; Goodwin et al., 2023; Erritzoe et al., 2024). This conclusion must not be extended to SSRI use with MAOI containing preparations such as ayahuasca.

Client-level eligibility versus program-level fit

A person can be appropriate for psychedelic therapy and still be wrong for a particular program. This distinction is where many eligibility errors live, because a facilitator who has concluded that a person is a good candidate can slide into assuming the person is a good candidate for their program specifically. A retreat without on-site medical support is not an appropriate container for someone with a complex cardiac history, even if that person is otherwise stable and well-prepared, because the program cannot hold the risk it would be taking on. The same person might be fully eligible for a medically supervised clinical program.

Program-level fit is a function of scope, medical capacity, staffing, and the specific compound involved. The compound matters because the required container differs by class: the ibogaine cardiac-monitoring requirement and the ayahuasca interaction review and any individually justified medication coordination taught in Criterion 2 are program-capacity questions as much as clinical ones. Determining eligibility therefore means knowing the honest limits of one's own program and being willing to refer a suitable person elsewhere when those limits are reached. Referring a good candidate to a better-matched program is not a failure of the determination; it is the determination working correctly.

Eligibility is time-dependent

Eligibility can change with current functioning, symptoms, substance use, consent capacity, practical support, and the demands of the proposed intervention. Recent bereavement, divorce, or another major disruption prompts assessment of these factors; it does not automatically establish ineligibility. Preclinical plasticity findings do not prove that admitting someone during upheaval will consolidate distress. Deferral should identify the current unmet clinical or practical need and a concrete path for reassessment. Adequate support and follow up remain reasonable even though a defined human plasticity window and selective emotional consolidation remain unresolved. Prolonged grief is under clinical investigation, including the PARTING pilot protocol, without establishing efficacy for acute grief (Ly et al., 2018; Shao et al., 2021; Beesley et al., 2025).

Documentation and the ethics of the decision

An eligibility determination that is not documented is incomplete because the record provides continuity, transparency, and a defensible account of the reasoning. The documentation should capture the readiness findings from Criterion 1, the coexisting-conditions review from Criterion 2, the integrated decision, any conditions attached to a deferral, and the referral destination where one applies. Beyond accountability, documentation disciplines the decision itself: a determination that has to be written down and defended is less likely to rest on an unexamined impression. This connects forward to Criterion 5, where the same information is formalized into the intake record, and it rests on the same scope-of-practice humility that anchors Criteria 1 and 2. Eligibility is where a program decides whom it can honestly hold, and doing that well protects the person, the group, and the integrity of the work.

Clinical and Decision Tools

Tool 1. The three eligibility questions

Every determination answers these three in order. A No at any level changes the outcome, and the tool records which level was decisive.

Tool 2. Eligibility integration grid

Bring each domain's read from Criteria 1 and 2 into one place, then state the integrated decision and the reasoning that connects them. This is the documented core of the determination.

Tool 3. Exclusion type reference

Sort an exclusion by its evidence, clinical rationale, and the program’s capacity. Current stop conditions, specific interaction hazards, conservative protocol exclusions, and uncertain risks require different reasoning. The medication rows distinguish mechanisms; they are not a complete interaction list or a clearance tool. Any prescription change belongs to the prescriber in coordination with an appropriately qualified psychedelic medicine clinician (Malcolm & Thomas, 2022; Sarparast et al., 2022).

Tool 4. Eligibility outcomes

Integrate the three questions and the grid into one of four documented outcomes.

Admit. Client-level eligible, program is an appropriate container, timing is adequate. Proceed to intake and preparation.

Admit with conditions. Fundamentally eligible, but one requirement must be met first, for example a prescriber-coordinated medication step from Criterion 2. Name the condition and the marker that satisfies it.

Defer (sequenced). Appropriate person, wrong time. Set concrete stabilization or preparation conditions and a path back.

Refer out. Either not client-level eligible, or eligible but a poor fit for this program's scope or capacity. Route warmly, with clear reasoning, to the appropriate professional or better-matched program.

Worked Examples: Completed Eligibility Determinations

The following models the reasoning and documentation this criterion should produce. Details are fictional.

Worked Example 1: Admit with conditions

Client: R.M., 42, treatment-resistant depression, seeking psilocybin work. Screening (Criterion 1) and coexisting-conditions review (Criterion 2) already completed.

Client-level eligibility: Psychological, social, and physiological reads are favorable, with one unresolved issue: individualized review of current SSRI treatment. Continuing an SSRI does not automatically exclude psilocybin treatment or require a washout. Review withdrawal history, psychiatric stability, duration of treatment, and intervention setting with the clinical team. The controlled pretreatment study and small open label continuation study do not establish suitability for every person (Becker et al., 2022; Goodwin et al., 2023).

Program fit: This is a medically supervised clinical program with prescriber coordination available, which matches this person's needs. Fit confirmed.

Timing: No acute stressor; integration window protected. Adequate.

Determination: Admit with conditions: complete prescriber and appropriately qualified psychedelic medicine clinician review and confirm that the program can implement the resulting plan. The marker is a documented individualized medication and stability assessment, not an automatic completed SSRI washout. Any proposed change needs assessment of withdrawal and illness recurrence. Document the rationale and share it with the treating clinician with a signed release (Erritzoe et al., 2024).

Worked Example 2: Eligible person, wrong program

Client: K.S., 58, seeking psilocybin work for existential distress related to a cancer diagnosis, a context with trial support (Ross et al., 2016). Psychologically stable, well supported, strongly motivated.

Client-level eligibility: No psychiatric contraindication. However, the coexisting-conditions review found a significant cardiac history requiring monitoring. Client-level eligibility is plausible with the right medical container.

Program fit: The program in question is a non-clinical retreat with no on-site medical support or cardiac monitoring capability. This program cannot safely hold this person's cardiac risk, regardless of their psychological suitability.

Determination: Refer out on program-fit grounds. This person is likely eligible for a medically supervised program that can provide cardiac monitoring and clearance. Route warmly, with the reasoning stated plainly: the limitation is this program's capacity, not the person's suitability. Document the referral and rationale.

Case Vignettes

Work each vignette through the three eligibility questions and the integration grid, reach one of the four outcomes, and write one paragraph defending it. Fillable response sheets are in the companion worksheet PDF.

Vignette A

A well-supported, medically clear person with stable depression applies to a trauma-focused program. Their presenting issue is not trauma but a desire for personal growth and insight. They meet every safety criterion.

Guided questions: Which of the three eligibility questions is doing the work here? Is a safety-clear person automatically a program-fit? Is this an admit, a refer, or a conversation about the right container?

Vignette B

An applicant has no personal psychiatric history but reports that a parent has bipolar disorder. A program staff member wants to exclude them automatically, citing the trial exclusion lists.

Guided questions: What does the applicant’s own mood, sleep, medication, substance use, and episode history show? How does the proposed compound change the assessment? How do family history, a personal history, and an active episode differ? Explain the program’s boundary and obtain appropriate psychiatric review without treating a trial exclusion as proof of a universal contraindication.

Vignette C

A strong candidate on every domain reveals during screening that they are three weeks into an acrimonious divorce and a contested move. They are eager to proceed immediately, arguing the medicine will help them cope.

Guided questions: Which current functioning, consent, symptom, support, or practical needs might change eligibility? Is divorce itself a contraindication? What would justify deferral on this assessment, and what would permit reassessment? Do not assume that plasticity will consolidate upheaval or that the medicine will reliably resolve it.

Vignette D

A person with a qualifying diagnosis and strong readiness wants ibogaine treatment at a program that offers it but has no ECG capability, no continuous cardiac monitoring, and no on-site emergency response. The person is willing to sign any waiver.

Guided questions: Does the person's willingness to sign a waiver change the program-fit analysis? Which criterion supplies the safety requirement being violated? Is this an eligibility decision about the person or about the program, and what is the correct outcome?

Vignette E

An applicant clears client-level eligibility and program fit and timing. During the final review, staff realize the program has never written down its eligibility criteria and has been deciding case by case, with different facilitators reaching different conclusions on similar profiles.

Guided questions: What risk does the absence of written criteria create, beyond this one case? What does the trial model suggest the program should do? Is this applicant's determination trustworthy in the current system, and what would make it so?

Role-Play and Practice Scripts

Practice in pairs, then switch. The aim is to communicate an eligibility decision, including a difficult one, with clarity and without either false reassurance or a sense of judgment.

Explaining an admit-with-conditions decision

“You are a good fit for this work, and there is one thing we need to complete first before we begin. Your prescriber and I need to coordinate a medication step, for your safety. Once that is done and your baseline is stable, we move forward. I will document exactly what we are waiting on so it is clear to both of us.”

Delivering a program-fit referral

“This is not a question of whether you are suitable for this work; I believe you are. It is that this specific program cannot provide the medical support your situation calls for. I would be doing you a disservice to admit you here. Let me help you find a program that can hold this safely.” Practice separating the person’s suitability from the program’s limits so the referral does not read as rejection.

Reasoning through a contested exclusion aloud

“You mentioned a parent with bipolar disorder. We need to review your own mood and sleep, any past episodes, medicines, other substance use, and the intervention being considered. Family history deserves attention, but it is not the same as current mania or a personal episode history. Our program’s criteria and appropriate psychiatric consultation will guide the decision. I will explain any boundary and the evidence behind it.”

Framing a sequenced deferral

“Based on everything, I do not think now is the right time, and I want to be precise that this is about timing, not about you. Here is what I would want to see settle first, and here is how we stay in contact so that when the time is right, you are not starting over.”

Self-Assessment and Reflection

Knowledge check

1. State the three questions an eligibility determination must answer, and give an example of a person who passes the first and fails the second.
2. Explain how eligibility depends on Criteria 1 and 2 without being a repeat of either.
3. Describe how the clinical trials construct inclusion and exclusion criteria, and why writing criteria in advance is itself a safety practice.
4. Distinguish a mechanism-grounded exclusion from a trial-design one, with an example of each, and explain why a program should not import a trial's full exclusion list wholesale.
5. Explain why a person's willingness to sign a waiver does not resolve a program-fit problem.
6. Give a profile of someone who is client-level eligible, program-fit, but should still be deferred, and explain the reasoning.

Reflection

1. Does your program have written eligibility criteria applied consistently across facilitators? If not, that gap is both a safety and a fairness liability. What is your plan to close it?
2. Where are you most tempted to stretch program-fit for a person you like or want to help? What structure would hold that line?
3. Recall an eligibility decision, yours or one you observed, that turned out to be wrong in either direction. Which of the three questions was misjudged, and what would have caught it?

Summary

Criterion 3 is where screening becomes a decision. It integrates the readiness read of Criterion 1 and the coexisting-conditions review of Criterion 2 into a single, documented answer to whether a specific person should be admitted to a specific program at a specific time. That answer has three parts: client-level eligibility, program-level fit, and timing, and a No at any level changes the outcome. The clinical trials supply a usable model for how eligibility criteria are built: specified in advance, grounded in stated reasons, and applied consistently; they also teach a discipline of discernment, since some exclusions rest on a specific safety mechanism while others reflect trial design and remain contested. A person can be suitable for the work and wrong for a given program, and referring such a person elsewhere is the determination working rather than failing. Eligibility is time-dependent, so a not-yet decision framed as a sequenced path is a clinical act, not a rejection. Documented with its reasoning, the determination protects the person, the group, and the integrity of the program, and it carries forward into the intake record of Criterion 5.

References

Davis, A. K., Barrett, F. S., May, D. G., Cosimano, M. P., Sepeda, N. D., Johnson, M. W., Finan, P. H., & Griffiths, R. R. (2021). Effects of psilocybin-assisted therapy on major depressive disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(5), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3285

Johnson, M. W., Richards, W. A., & Griffiths, R. R. (2008). Human hallucinogen research: Guidelines for safety. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 603–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881108093587

Carhart-Harris, R., Giribaldi, B., Watts, R., Baker-Jones, M., Murphy-Beiner, A., Murphy, R., Martell, J., Blemings, A., Erritzoe, D., & Nutt, D. J. (2021). Trial of psilocybin versus escitalopram for depression. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(15), 1402–1411. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2032994

Downey, A. E., Bradley, E. R., Lerche, A. S., O’Donovan, A., Krystal, A. D., & Woolley, J. (2024). A plea for nuance: Should people with a family history of bipolar disorder be excluded from clinical trials of psilocybin therapy? Psychedelic Medicine, 2(2), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/psymed.2023.0051

Goodwin, G. M., Aaronson, S. T., Alvarez, O., Arden, P. C., Baker, A., Bennett, J. C., Bird, C., Blom, R. E., Brennan, C., Brusch, D., Burke, L., Campbell-Coker, K., Carhart-Harris, R., Cattell, J., Daniel, A., DeBattista, C., Dunlop, B. W., Eisen, K., Feifel, D., … Malievskaia, E. (2022). Single-dose psilocybin for a treatment-resistant episode of major depression. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(18), 1637–1648. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2206443

Gukasyan, N., Davis, A. K., Barrett, F. S., Cosimano, M. P., Sepeda, N. D., Johnson, M. W., & Griffiths, R. R. (2022). Efficacy and safety of psilocybin-assisted treatment for major depressive disorder: Prospective 12-month follow-up. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 36(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811211073759

Ross, S., Bossis, A., Guss, J., Agin-Liebes, G., Malone, T., Cohen, B., Mennenga, S. E., Belser, A., Kalliontzi, K., Babb, J., Su, Z., Corby, P., & Schmidt, B. L. (2016). Rapid and sustained symptom reduction following psilocybin treatment for anxiety and depression in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 30(12), 1165–1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881116675512

Becker, A. M., Holze, F., Grandinetti, T., Klaiber, A., Toedtli, V. E., Kolaczynska, K. E., Duthaler, U., Varghese, N., Eckert, A., Grünblatt, E., & Liechti, M. E. (2022). Acute Effects of Psilocybin After Escitalopram or Placebo Pretreatment in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Crossover Study in Healthy Subjects. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 111, 886–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2487

Goodwin, G. M., Croal, M., Feifel, D., Kelly, J. R., Marwood, L., Mistry, S., O’Keane, V., Knatz Peck, S., Simmons, H., Sisa, C., Stansfield, S. C., Tsai, J., Williams, S., & Malievskaia, E. (2023). Psilocybin for treatment resistant depression in patients taking a concomitant SSRI medication. Neuropsychopharmacology, 48, 1492–1499. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-023-01648-7

Erritzoe, D., Barba, T., Spriggs, M. J., Rosas, F. E., Nutt, D. J., & Carhart-Harris, R. (2024). Effects of discontinuation of serotonergic antidepressants prior to psilocybin therapy versus escitalopram for major depression. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 38, 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811241237870

Bahji, A., Zarate, C. A., & Vazquez, G. H. (2021). Ketamine for Bipolar Depression: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 24, 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyab023

Beesley, V. L., Kennedy, T. J., MacCallum, F., Ross, M., Harvey, R., Rossell, S. L., Sarris, J., Perkins, D., Neale, R. E., Bennett-Levy, J., Johnson, S., Beebe, H., Roset, N., Strobel, J., & Parker, S. (2025). Psilocybin-Assisted suppoRtive psychoTherapy IN the treatment of prolonged Grief (PARTING) trial: protocol for an open-label pilot trial for cancer-related bereavement. BMJ Open, 15, e095992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095992

Malcolm, B., & Thomas, K. (2022). Serotonin toxicity of serotonergic psychedelics. Psychopharmacology, 239, 1881–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-05876-x

Sarparast, A., Thomas, K., Malcolm, B., & Stauffer, C. S. (2022). Drug–drug interactions between psychiatric medications and MDMA or psilocybin: a systematic review. Psychopharmacology, 239, 1945–1976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-022-06083-y

Ly, C., Greb, A. C., Cameron, L. P., Wong, J. M., Barragan, E. V., Wilson, P. C., Burbach, K. F., Soltanzadeh Zarandi, S., Sood, A., Paddy, M. R., Duim, W. C., Dennis, M. Y., McAllister, A. K., Ori-McKenney, K. M., Gray, J. A., & Olson, D. E. (2018). Psychedelics promote structural and functional neural plasticity. Cell Reports, 23(11), 3170–3182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.022

Shao, L.-X., Liao, C., Gregg, I., Davoudian, P. A., Savalia, N. K., Delagarza, K., & Kwan, A. C. (2021). Psilocybin induces rapid and persistent growth of dendritic spines in frontal cortex in vivo. Neuron, 109(16), 2535–2544.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.008

Amitriptyline hydrochloride. US prescribing information. DailyMed. Mechanism, warnings, and interaction sections; product specific labeling, reviewed 3 October 2026. https://www.dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=705a2bae-031d-4218-82fe-4346542c0baa

Trazodone hydrochloride. US prescribing information. DailyMed. Mechanism, warnings, and interaction sections; product specific labeling, reviewed 3 October 2026. https://www.dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=1510cf89-a2ec-4ed5-80cb-bae84f9ec0a7

Mirtazapine. US prescribing information. DailyMed. Mechanism, warnings, and interaction sections; product specific labeling, reviewed 3 October 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=b4b9b66e-87a1-4dbb-9eaf-71221bcb2265

Buspirone hydrochloride. US prescribing information. DailyMed. Mechanism, warnings, and interaction sections; product specific labeling, reviewed 3 October 2026. https://www.dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=4ff72575-bd60-40ce-b3a8-fd92b79af674

Pokorny, T., Preller, K. H., Kraehenmann, R., & Vollenweider, F. X. (2016). Modulatory effect of the 5-HT1A agonist buspirone and the mixed non-hallucinogenic 5-HT1A/2A agonist ergotamine on psilocybin-induced psychedelic experience. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 26, 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.01.005