Registered clinical trials investigating ketamine and esketamine for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review

IF 2.2 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
M. Brendle, A. Ragnhildstveit, M. Slayton, Leo Smart, Sarah Cunningham, Mackenzie H. Zimmerman, P. Seli, M. Gaffrey, L. Averill, R. Robison
{"title":"Registered clinical trials investigating ketamine and esketamine for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review","authors":"M. Brendle, A. Ragnhildstveit, M. Slayton, Leo Smart, Sarah Cunningham, Mackenzie H. Zimmerman, P. Seli, M. Gaffrey, L. Averill, R. Robison","doi":"10.1556/2054.2022.00234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ketamine and esketamine have garnered interest in both psychiatric research and clinical practice for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In this review, we examined registered trials investigating the therapeutic use of ketamine or esketamine for TRD, with the aim of characterizing emerging trends and knowledge gaps.The ClinicalTrials.gov electronic registry and results database was queried from inception to February 5, 2022, adhering to elements of the PRISMA guideline, we evaluated trial eligibility in the qualitative synthesis. Data regarding study design, drug regimens, and measures were subsequently abstracted and descriptively analyzed.The search returned 86 records, of which 56 trials were included in the final review. The number of trials investigating ketamine and esketamine for TRD increased since 2008, with higher peaks observed in 2015 (n = 9) and 2021 (n = 9). Most trials were Phase 2 (13, 23.2%) or Phase 3 (11, 19.6%), gathering preliminary data on efficacy and/or further data on safety and efficacy with variant dosing and pharmacological approaches. By and large, trials examined ketamine and esketamine as individual versus combination treatments (45% and 25%, respectively). The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was most commonly used to assess clinical outcomes (75%).There are increasingly large-scale and late-phase trials of esketamine over ketamine for TRD, coupled with efforts to centralize evidence on these medications. Yet several trials do not assess patient characteristics that may affect treatment response, such as age, sex, and race. By understanding these design limitations, scientists and clinicians can avoid research waste and funding bodies can judiciously direct support towards high priority research.","PeriodicalId":34732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychedelic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychedelic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2022.00234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Ketamine and esketamine have garnered interest in both psychiatric research and clinical practice for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In this review, we examined registered trials investigating the therapeutic use of ketamine or esketamine for TRD, with the aim of characterizing emerging trends and knowledge gaps.The ClinicalTrials.gov electronic registry and results database was queried from inception to February 5, 2022, adhering to elements of the PRISMA guideline, we evaluated trial eligibility in the qualitative synthesis. Data regarding study design, drug regimens, and measures were subsequently abstracted and descriptively analyzed.The search returned 86 records, of which 56 trials were included in the final review. The number of trials investigating ketamine and esketamine for TRD increased since 2008, with higher peaks observed in 2015 (n = 9) and 2021 (n = 9). Most trials were Phase 2 (13, 23.2%) or Phase 3 (11, 19.6%), gathering preliminary data on efficacy and/or further data on safety and efficacy with variant dosing and pharmacological approaches. By and large, trials examined ketamine and esketamine as individual versus combination treatments (45% and 25%, respectively). The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was most commonly used to assess clinical outcomes (75%).There are increasingly large-scale and late-phase trials of esketamine over ketamine for TRD, coupled with efforts to centralize evidence on these medications. Yet several trials do not assess patient characteristics that may affect treatment response, such as age, sex, and race. By understanding these design limitations, scientists and clinicians can avoid research waste and funding bodies can judiciously direct support towards high priority research.
氯胺酮和氯胺酮治疗难治性抑郁症的注册临床试验:系统综述
氯胺酮和艾氯胺酮引起了精神病学研究和治疗难治性抑郁症(TRD)临床实践的兴趣。在这篇综述中,我们审查了调查氯胺酮或艾氯胺酮治疗TRD的注册试验,目的是描述新趋势和知识空白。从开始到2022年2月5日,我们查询了ClinicalTrials.gov电子注册和结果数据库,遵循PRISMA指南的要素,我们在定性综合中评估了试验的资格。随后对有关研究设计、药物方案和措施的数据进行抽象和描述性分析。检索返回86条记录,其中56项试验被纳入最终审查。研究氯胺酮和艾氯胺酮治疗TRD的试验数量自2008年以来有所增加,在2015年(n = 9)和2021年(n = 9)达到高峰。大多数试验为2期(13,23.2%)或3期(11,19.6%),收集了关于不同剂量和药理学方法的疗效和安全性的初步数据和/或进一步数据。总的来说,试验检查了氯胺酮和艾氯胺酮作为单独治疗和联合治疗(分别为45%和25%)。蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁评定量表(MADRS)最常用于评估临床结果(75%)。在治疗TRD方面,艾氯胺酮比氯胺酮进行了越来越多的大规模后期试验,同时努力将这些药物的证据集中起来。然而,一些试验没有评估可能影响治疗反应的患者特征,如年龄、性别和种族。通过了解这些设计限制,科学家和临床医生可以避免研究浪费,资助机构可以明智地将支持指向高优先级的研究。
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 Psychedelic Studies
Journal of Psychedelic Studies Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.90%
发文量
20
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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