4.3 Review

Use of ketamine and esketamine for depression: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 311-338

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03216-8

关键词

Mental disorders; Depression; Ketamine; Esketamine; Overview; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ketamine and esketamine have shown significant antidepressant effects within hours or days after administration, but long-term efficacy and the methodological quality of reviews are lacking.
Purpose To summarize the evidence of efficacy and safety of the use of ketamine and esketamine for depression. Methods A literature search was performed in Medline, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, and CRD until November 2020. We included systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the use of ketamine and esketamine in adult patients with depression. Two authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to appraise the quality of included reviews. Results A total of 118 records were identified, and 11 studies fully met the eligibility criteria. Compared to control, ketamine improved the clinical response at 40 min to 1 week and clinical remission at 80 min to 72 h, and esketamine improved both outcomes at 2 h to 4 weeks. Ketamine and esketamine also had a beneficial effect on the depression scales score and suicidality. For adverse events, oral ketamine did not show significant change compared to control, while intranasal esketamine showed difference for any events, such as dissociation, dizziness, hypoesthesia, and vertigo. Most reviews were classified as critically low quality, and none of them declared the source of funding of the primary studies and assessed the potential impact of risk of bias in primary studies. Conclusion Ketamine and esketamine showed a significant antidepressant action within a few hours or days after administration; however, the long-term efficacy and safety are lacking. In addition, the methodological quality of the reviews was usually critically low, which may indicate the need for higher quality evidence in relation to the theme.

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

4.3
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