4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive therapy using esketamine or racemic ketamine for adult treatment-resistant depression: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study

期刊

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 527-534

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.086

关键词

Ketamine; Esketamine; Treatment resistant depression; Major depressive disorder; Non-inferiority; Unipolar depression

资金

  1. Programa Pesquisa para o SUS(PPSUS/ BA - Research Grant) [003/2017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ketamine and its enantiomers have recently been highlighted as one of the most effective therapeutic options in refractory depression. However, racemic ketamine and esketamine have not been directly compared. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine compared to ketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, bicentre, non-inferiority clinical trial, with two parallel groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a 40-min single intravenous infusion of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg or esketamine 0.25 mg/kg. The primary outcome was the difference in remission rates for depression 24 h following intervention using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), with a non-inferiority margin of 20%. Results: 63 subjects were included and randomly assigned (29 to receive ketamine and 34 to receive esketamine). At 24 h, 24.1% of participants in the ketamine group and 29.4% of participants in the esketamine group showed remission, with a difference of 5.3% (95% CILB -13.6%), confirming non-inferiority. MADRS scores improved from 33 (SD 9.3) to 16.2 (SD 10.7) in the ketamine group and from 33 (SD 5.3) to 17.5 (SD 12.2) in the esketamine one, with a difference of -5.27% (95% CILB, -13.6). Both groups presented similar mild side effects. Conclusions: Esketamine was non-inferior to ketamine for TRD 24 h following infusion. Both treatments were effective, safe, and well tolerated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据