治疗难治性抑郁症采用KET还是ECT ?

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
M Spies, S Kasper, R Frey, P Baldinger-Melich
{"title":"治疗难治性抑郁症采用KET还是ECT ?","authors":"M Spies, S Kasper, R Frey, P Baldinger-Melich","doi":"10.1080/13651501.2025.2462725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Modern electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine currently represent the most effective treatment options in depressed patients showing non-response to two or more trials of antidepressants. Recently, large sample head-to-head comparisons of intravenous ketamine versus ECT for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have fuelled the debate on which therapy might be more effective. However, the informative value of these studies is limited due to major methodological differences, especially regarding patients' baseline clinical characteristics and treatment procedures. This commentary, in reaction to the recently published article by Jha et al. 'Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial' in <i>JAMA Network Open</i>, addresses this issue and proposes that treatment decisions of ECT or ketamine should be based on substantiated, predictive clinical response markers and patient's preferences. It is undisputed that both treatments are highly effective in TRD, yet, given that ketamine is usually administered before ECT, efficacy studies of ECT in ketamine non-responders are urgently warranted.KEYPOINTSModern electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine currently represent the most effective treatment options in treatment-resistant depressionHead-to-head comparisons of both treatments have yielded incongruent findings due to differing patients' baseline clinical characteristics and treatment proceduresTreatment-decisions of ECT or ketamine should be based on predictive clinical response markers and patient's preferences while considering the specific side effect profiles of both optionsFuture prospective studies should assess the efficacy of ECT in ketamine non-responders.</p>","PeriodicalId":14351,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice","volume":" ","pages":"235-237"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"KET or ECT for treatment-resistant depression?\",\"authors\":\"M Spies, S Kasper, R Frey, P Baldinger-Melich\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13651501.2025.2462725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Modern electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine currently represent the most effective treatment options in depressed patients showing non-response to two or more trials of antidepressants. Recently, large sample head-to-head comparisons of intravenous ketamine versus ECT for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have fuelled the debate on which therapy might be more effective. However, the informative value of these studies is limited due to major methodological differences, especially regarding patients' baseline clinical characteristics and treatment procedures. This commentary, in reaction to the recently published article by Jha et al. 'Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial' in <i>JAMA Network Open</i>, addresses this issue and proposes that treatment decisions of ECT or ketamine should be based on substantiated, predictive clinical response markers and patient's preferences. It is undisputed that both treatments are highly effective in TRD, yet, given that ketamine is usually administered before ECT, efficacy studies of ECT in ketamine non-responders are urgently warranted.KEYPOINTSModern electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine currently represent the most effective treatment options in treatment-resistant depressionHead-to-head comparisons of both treatments have yielded incongruent findings due to differing patients' baseline clinical characteristics and treatment proceduresTreatment-decisions of ECT or ketamine should be based on predictive clinical response markers and patient's preferences while considering the specific side effect profiles of both optionsFuture prospective studies should assess the efficacy of ECT in ketamine non-responders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"235-237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2025.2462725\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13651501.2025.2462725","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现代电休克疗法(ECT)和氯胺酮目前是对两种或两种以上抗抑郁药物无反应的抑郁症患者最有效的治疗选择。最近,静脉注射氯胺酮和ECT治疗难治性抑郁症(TRD)的大样本对比引发了关于哪种治疗可能更有效的争论。然而,由于主要的方法学差异,特别是关于患者的基线临床特征和治疗程序,这些研究的信息价值是有限的。这篇评论是对Jha等人最近发表的文章的回应。《氯胺酮与电惊厥治疗难治性抑郁症:一项随机临床试验的二次分析》发表在JAMA Network Open上,解决了这一问题,并建议ECT或氯胺酮的治疗决策应基于证实的、可预测的临床反应标志物和患者的偏好。毫无疑问,这两种治疗方法对TRD都非常有效,然而,鉴于氯胺酮通常在ECT之前施用,因此迫切需要对氯胺酮无反应的ECT进行疗效研究。现代电休克疗法(ECT)和氯胺酮目前是治疗难治性抑郁症最有效的治疗选择,由于患者的基线临床特征和治疗程序不同,两种治疗方法的正面比较产生了不一致的结果。ECT或氯胺酮的治疗决定应基于预测性临床反应标志物和患者的偏好,同时考虑两者的特定副作用未来的前瞻性研究应评估电痉挛疗法对氯胺酮无反应者的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
KET or ECT for treatment-resistant depression?

Modern electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine currently represent the most effective treatment options in depressed patients showing non-response to two or more trials of antidepressants. Recently, large sample head-to-head comparisons of intravenous ketamine versus ECT for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have fuelled the debate on which therapy might be more effective. However, the informative value of these studies is limited due to major methodological differences, especially regarding patients' baseline clinical characteristics and treatment procedures. This commentary, in reaction to the recently published article by Jha et al. 'Ketamine vs Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial' in JAMA Network Open, addresses this issue and proposes that treatment decisions of ECT or ketamine should be based on substantiated, predictive clinical response markers and patient's preferences. It is undisputed that both treatments are highly effective in TRD, yet, given that ketamine is usually administered before ECT, efficacy studies of ECT in ketamine non-responders are urgently warranted.KEYPOINTSModern electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and ketamine currently represent the most effective treatment options in treatment-resistant depressionHead-to-head comparisons of both treatments have yielded incongruent findings due to differing patients' baseline clinical characteristics and treatment proceduresTreatment-decisions of ECT or ketamine should be based on predictive clinical response markers and patient's preferences while considering the specific side effect profiles of both optionsFuture prospective studies should assess the efficacy of ECT in ketamine non-responders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.30%
发文量
42
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice provides an international forum for communication among health professionals with clinical, academic and research interests in psychiatry. The journal gives particular emphasis to papers that integrate the findings of academic research into realities of clinical practice. Focus on the practical aspects of managing and treating patients. Essential reading for the busy psychiatrist, trainee and interested physician. Includes original research papers, comprehensive review articles and short communications. Key words: Psychiatry, Neuropsychopharmacology, Mental health, Neuropsychiatry, Clinical Neurophysiology, Psychophysiology, Psychotherapy, Addiction, Schizophrenia, Depression, Bipolar Disorders and Anxiety.
×
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