Comparative antidepressant effects and safety of intravenous racemic ketamine, psilocybin and theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences Pub Date : 2024-12-04 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1002/pcn5.70042
Itsuki Terao, Wakako Kodama
{"title":"Comparative antidepressant effects and safety of intravenous racemic ketamine, psilocybin and theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorder: A systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Itsuki Terao, Wakako Kodama","doi":"10.1002/pcn5.70042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The individual efficacy and safety of intravenous racemic (IV) ketamine, psilocybin, and theta burst stimulation (TBS) for major depressive disorder have been demonstrated through meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but the comparative usefulness of these novel treatments has not yet been fully examined. We systematically searched the CENTRAL, Medline, CINHAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials up to July 4, 2024. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the Comparative antidepressant effects and safety of intravenous racemic ketamine, psilocybin and theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorderantidepressant efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of IV ketamine, psilocybin, and TBS. Twenty-eight RCTs were included. All treatments were superior to placebo, with IV ketamine and psilocybin showing significantly greater antidepressant efficacy than TBS. No significant differences were detected between all treatments and placebo in tolerability and acceptability. In a subgroup analysis focusing on short periods of 1 week or less, only IV ketamine was significantly more effective than placebo. In another subgroup analysis focusing on periods of 4 weeks or longer, IV ketamine and psilocybin showed significantly better antidepressant effects than placebo. The confidence in the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Specifically, there is a scarcity of studies on psilocybin and a lack of direct comparison trials. The findings suggest that IV ketamine and psilocybin may be more effective treatments compared to TBS. Additionally, IV ketamine may have an advantage in terms of rapid onset of action. The number of included studies is limited, especially for psilocybin, and therefore the current findings are preliminary, necessitating further accumulation of direct-comparison RCTs.</p>","PeriodicalId":74405,"journal":{"name":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","volume":"3 4","pages":"e70042"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11617594/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.70042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The individual efficacy and safety of intravenous racemic (IV) ketamine, psilocybin, and theta burst stimulation (TBS) for major depressive disorder have been demonstrated through meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but the comparative usefulness of these novel treatments has not yet been fully examined. We systematically searched the CENTRAL, Medline, CINHAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials up to July 4, 2024. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the Comparative antidepressant effects and safety of intravenous racemic ketamine, psilocybin and theta burst stimulation for major depressive disorderantidepressant efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of IV ketamine, psilocybin, and TBS. Twenty-eight RCTs were included. All treatments were superior to placebo, with IV ketamine and psilocybin showing significantly greater antidepressant efficacy than TBS. No significant differences were detected between all treatments and placebo in tolerability and acceptability. In a subgroup analysis focusing on short periods of 1 week or less, only IV ketamine was significantly more effective than placebo. In another subgroup analysis focusing on periods of 4 weeks or longer, IV ketamine and psilocybin showed significantly better antidepressant effects than placebo. The confidence in the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Specifically, there is a scarcity of studies on psilocybin and a lack of direct comparison trials. The findings suggest that IV ketamine and psilocybin may be more effective treatments compared to TBS. Additionally, IV ketamine may have an advantage in terms of rapid onset of action. The number of included studies is limited, especially for psilocybin, and therefore the current findings are preliminary, necessitating further accumulation of direct-comparison RCTs.

静脉注射氯胺酮、裸盖菇素和θ波爆发刺激治疗重度抑郁症的抗抑郁效果和安全性比较:随机对照试验的系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
通过随机对照试验(RCTs)的荟萃分析,静脉注射氯胺酮(IV)、裸盖菇素和θ波爆发刺激(TBS)治疗重度抑郁症的个体疗效和安全性已经得到证实,但这些新疗法的相对有效性尚未得到充分检验。我们系统地检索了截至2024年7月4日的CENTRAL、Medline、CINHAL和ClinicalTrials.gov数据库中的随机对照试验。采用随机效应网络meta分析,比较静脉注射氯胺酮、裸盖菇素和θ波爆发刺激治疗重度抑郁症的抗抑郁效果和安全性,以及静脉注射氯胺酮、裸盖菇素和TBS的抗抑郁疗效、耐受性和可接受性。纳入28项随机对照试验。所有治疗均优于安慰剂,静脉注射氯胺酮和裸盖菇素的抗抑郁疗效明显高于TBS。所有治疗与安慰剂在耐受性和可接受性方面均无显著差异。在针对短时间1周或更短时间的亚组分析中,只有IV氯胺酮明显比安慰剂更有效。在另一个关注4周或更长时间的亚组分析中,IV氯胺酮和裸盖菇素的抗抑郁效果明显优于安慰剂。证据的可信度从极低到中等不等。具体来说,关于裸盖菇素的研究很少,也缺乏直接的比较试验。研究结果表明,与TBS相比,静脉注射氯胺酮和裸盖菇素可能更有效。此外,静脉注射氯胺酮在快速起效方面可能具有优势。纳入的研究数量有限,特别是对裸盖菇素的研究,因此目前的研究结果是初步的,需要进一步积累直接比较rct。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信