Comparative Effects of Repeated Ketamine Infusion Versus Intranasal Esketamine in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Retrospective Chart Review.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Robert Meisner, Shuang Li, Brian Boyle, Violeta Valdivia, Amanda Sedgewick, Danika Dai, Courtney Miller, Paula Bolton, Steve Seiner
{"title":"Comparative Effects of Repeated Ketamine Infusion Versus Intranasal Esketamine in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Retrospective Chart Review.","authors":"Robert Meisner, Shuang Li, Brian Boyle, Violeta Valdivia, Amanda Sedgewick, Danika Dai, Courtney Miller, Paula Bolton, Steve Seiner","doi":"10.4088/JCP.25m15789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Both intravenous (IV) racemic ketamine and intranasal (IN) esketamine have emerged as rapid-acting antidepressants for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and are increasingly used in clinical settings. Relatively few studies, however, have compared these interventions in larger, naturalistic cohorts. This study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and rapidity of response observed with repeated IV ketamine versus IN esketamine in a psychiatric neurotherapeutics specialty service. Through retrospective chart review, we conducted what is, to the best of our knowledge, among the larger such comparisons to date.</p><p><p><b>Methods:</b> Data from 153 patients with severe TRD were reviewed (111 patients received IV ketamine and 42 patients received IN esketamine). In accordance with consensus criteria for TRD and validated objective criteria for illness severity, included patients failed a minimum of 2 adequate antidepressant treatment trials and demonstrated a preketamine treatment score of 16 or higher on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR<sub>16</sub>). Severity of depression was subsequently reassessed with the QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>prior to each ketamine and esketamine administration. A 2-way analysis of variance was used to compare changes in QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>scores between the IV ketamine and IN esketamine treatment groups.</p><p><p><b>Results:</b> With equivalent depression severity measured by QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>at pretreatment baseline, the IV ketamine treatment group showed significantly greater decreases in QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>scores compared to the IN esketamine group, as measured immediately before each treatment from the third to the eighth session (all <i>P</i> values < .05). Patients who received IV ketamine infusions demonstrated a 49.22% reduction in QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>scores by the eighth treatment, while patients who received IN esketamine over the same induction period showed a 39.55% reduction. As expected, both IV ketamine and IN esketamine treatments resulted in significant decreases in QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>scores. In the IV ketamine group, the decrease in QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>scores reached significance after 1 treatment, while in the IN esketamine treatment group, the decrease in QIDS-SR<sub>16 </sub>scores reached significance after the second treatment.</p><p><p><b>Conclusion:</b> In this naturalistic sample of patients with similarly severe TRD treated in a ketamine subspecialty service over a 4-5-week induction period, treatment with IV racemic ketamine was associated with a more rapid response and greater overall efficacy than treatment with IN esketamine.</p>","PeriodicalId":50234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","volume":"86 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.25m15789","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Both intravenous (IV) racemic ketamine and intranasal (IN) esketamine have emerged as rapid-acting antidepressants for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and are increasingly used in clinical settings. Relatively few studies, however, have compared these interventions in larger, naturalistic cohorts. This study was conducted to assess the comparative efficacy and rapidity of response observed with repeated IV ketamine versus IN esketamine in a psychiatric neurotherapeutics specialty service. Through retrospective chart review, we conducted what is, to the best of our knowledge, among the larger such comparisons to date.

Methods: Data from 153 patients with severe TRD were reviewed (111 patients received IV ketamine and 42 patients received IN esketamine). In accordance with consensus criteria for TRD and validated objective criteria for illness severity, included patients failed a minimum of 2 adequate antidepressant treatment trials and demonstrated a preketamine treatment score of 16 or higher on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Severity of depression was subsequently reassessed with the QIDS-SR16 prior to each ketamine and esketamine administration. A 2-way analysis of variance was used to compare changes in QIDS-SR16 scores between the IV ketamine and IN esketamine treatment groups.

Results: With equivalent depression severity measured by QIDS-SR16 at pretreatment baseline, the IV ketamine treatment group showed significantly greater decreases in QIDS-SR16 scores compared to the IN esketamine group, as measured immediately before each treatment from the third to the eighth session (all P values < .05). Patients who received IV ketamine infusions demonstrated a 49.22% reduction in QIDS-SR16 scores by the eighth treatment, while patients who received IN esketamine over the same induction period showed a 39.55% reduction. As expected, both IV ketamine and IN esketamine treatments resulted in significant decreases in QIDS-SR16 scores. In the IV ketamine group, the decrease in QIDS-SR16 scores reached significance after 1 treatment, while in the IN esketamine treatment group, the decrease in QIDS-SR16 scores reached significance after the second treatment.

Conclusion: In this naturalistic sample of patients with similarly severe TRD treated in a ketamine subspecialty service over a 4-5-week induction period, treatment with IV racemic ketamine was associated with a more rapid response and greater overall efficacy than treatment with IN esketamine.

反复氯胺酮输注与鼻内艾氯胺酮治疗难治性抑郁症的比较效果:回顾性图表回顾。
目的:静脉(IV)外消旋氯胺酮和鼻内(IN)艾氯胺酮已成为治疗难治性抑郁症(TRD)的速效抗抑郁药,并越来越多地用于临床。然而,相对较少的研究将这些干预措施在更大的、自然的队列中进行比较。本研究旨在评估在精神神经治疗专业服务中反复IV氯胺酮与IN艾氯胺酮的疗效和反应速度的比较。据我们所知,通过回顾图表,我们进行了迄今为止规模较大的比较。方法:回顾性分析153例重度TRD患者的资料,其中静脉注射氯胺酮111例,内注射氯胺酮42例。根据TRD的共识标准和有效的疾病严重程度客观标准,纳入了至少2次适当抗抑郁药物治疗试验失败的患者,并在16项抑郁症状自我报告快速量表(QIDS-SR16)中显示pre氯胺酮治疗得分为16分或更高。随后在每次使用氯胺酮和艾氯胺酮之前,用QIDS-SR16重新评估抑郁症的严重程度。采用双向方差分析比较IV氯胺酮治疗组和in氯胺酮治疗组QIDS-SR16评分的变化。结果:在预处理基线QIDS-SR16测量的抑郁严重程度相同的情况下,IV氯胺酮治疗组在QIDS-SR16评分上的下降幅度明显大于in氯胺酮组,在第3次至第8次治疗前立即测量(均P值< 0.05)。到第8次治疗时,静脉输注氯胺酮的患者QIDS-SR16评分下降49.22%,而在相同诱导期内,静脉输注氯胺酮的患者QIDS-SR16评分下降39.55%。正如预期的那样,IV氯胺酮和IN氯胺酮治疗均导致QIDS-SR16评分显著降低。IV氯胺酮组QIDS-SR16评分在1次治疗后下降有显著性,而In氯胺酮治疗组QIDS-SR16评分在2次治疗后下降有显著性。结论:在这个同样严重的TRD患者的自然样本中,在氯胺酮亚专科服务中治疗了4-5周的诱导期,IV外消旋氯胺酮治疗比In艾司氯胺酮治疗具有更快的反应和更高的总体疗效。
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
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: For over 75 years, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry has been a leading source of peer-reviewed articles offering the latest information on mental health topics to psychiatrists and other medical professionals.The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry is the leading psychiatric resource for clinical information and covers disorders including depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety, addiction, posttraumatic stress disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder while exploring the newest advances in diagnosis and treatment.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信