Joakim Ekstrand, Akihiro Takamiya, Axel Nordenskjold, George Kirov, Pascal Sienaert, Charles H Kellner, Pouya Movahed Rad
{"title":"氯胺酮还是电痉挛疗法？我们从 KetECT 和 ELEKT-D 试验中学到了什么？","authors":"Joakim Ekstrand, Akihiro Takamiya, Axel Nordenskjold, George Kirov, Pascal Sienaert, Charles H Kellner, Pouya Movahed Rad","doi":"10.1093/ijnp/pyad065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.</p>","PeriodicalId":14134,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10829070/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ketamine or ECT? What Have We Learned From the KetECT and ELEKT-D Trials?\",\"authors\":\"Joakim Ekstrand, Akihiro Takamiya, Axel Nordenskjold, George Kirov, Pascal Sienaert, Charles H Kellner, Pouya Movahed Rad\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijnp/pyad065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10829070/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyad065\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyad065","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ketamine or ECT? What Have We Learned From the KetECT and ELEKT-D Trials?
1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.
期刊介绍：
The central focus of the journal is on research that advances understanding of existing and new neuropsychopharmacological agents including their mode of action and clinical application or provides insights into the biological basis of psychiatric disorders and thereby advances their pharmacological treatment. Such research may derive from the full spectrum of biological and psychological fields of inquiry encompassing classical and novel techniques in neuropsychopharmacology as well as strategies such as neuroimaging, genetics, psychoneuroendocrinology and neuropsychology.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
