Oxford, UK.
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cyprus University of Technology, Lemesos, Cyprus.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 8;10(10):CD011611. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011611.pub3.
Glutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate receptor modulators for depression in bipolar disorder.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.
RCTs comparing ketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with other active psychotropic drugs or saline placebo in adults with bipolar depression.
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were response rate and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, depression severity change scores, suicidality, cognition, quality of life, and dropout rate. The GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
Ten studies (647 participants) were included in this review (an additional five studies compared to the 2015 review). There were no additional studies added to the comparisons identified in the 2015 Cochrane review on ketamine, memantine and cytidine versus placebo. However, three new comparisons were found: ketamine versus midazolam, N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, and riluzole versus placebo. The glutamate receptor modulators studied were ketamine (three trials), memantine (two), cytidine (one), N-acetylcysteine (three), and riluzole (one). Eight of these studies were placebo-controlled and two-armed. In seven trials the glutamate receptor modulators had been used as add-on drugs to mood stabilisers. Only one trial compared ketamine with an active comparator, midazolam. The treatment period ranged from a single intravenous administration (all ketamine studies), to repeated administration for riluzole, memantine, cytidine, and N-acetylcysteine (with a follow-up of eight weeks, 8 to 12 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 to 20 weeks, respectively). Six of the studies included sites in the USA, one in Taiwan, one in Denmark, one in Australia, and in one study the location was unclear. All participants had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder and were experiencing an acute bipolar depressive episode, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (IV) or fourth edition text revision (IV-TR). Among all glutamate receptor modulators included in this review, only ketamine appeared to be more efficacious than placebo 24 hours after infusion for response rate (odds ratio (OR) 11.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 107.74; P = 0.03; participants = 33; studies = 2; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). Ketamine seemed to be more effective in reducing depression rating scale scores (MD -11.81, 95% CI -20.01 to -3.61; P = 0.005; participants = 32; studies = 2; I = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of ketamine's efficacy in producing remission over placebo at 24 hours (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 52.30; P = 0.72; participants = 33; studies = 2; I = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on response, remission or depression rating scale scores between ketamine and midazolam was uncertain at 24 hours due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.23 to 45.19). In the one trial assessing ketamine and midazolam, there were no dropouts due to adverse effects or for any reason (very low-certainty evidence). Placebo may have been more effective than N-acetylcysteine in reducing depression rating scale scores at three months, although this was based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 1.28, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.31; participants = 58; studies = 2). Very uncertain evidence found no difference in response at three months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.14; participants = 69; studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for remission or acceptability. Extremely limited data were available for riluzole vs placebo, finding only very-low certainty evidence of no difference in dropout rates (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.84; P = 0.46; participants = 19; studies = 1; I = 0%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this review due to the certainty of the evidence being low to very low, and the relatively small amount of data usable for analysis in bipolar disorder, which is considerably less than the information available for unipolar depression. Nevertheless, we found uncertain evidence in favour of a single intravenous dose of ketamine (as add-on therapy to mood stabilisers) over placebo in terms of response rate up to 24 hours, however ketamine did not show any better efficacy for remission in bipolar depression. Even though ketamine has the potential to have a rapid and transient antidepressant effect, the efficacy of a single intravenous dose may be limited. We did not find conclusive evidence on adverse events with ketamine, and there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. However, ketamine's psychotomimetic effects (such as delusions or delirium) may have compromised study blinding in some studies, and so we cannot rule out the potential bias introduced by inadequate blinding procedures. To draw more robust conclusions, further methodologically sound RCTs (with adequate blinding) are needed to explore different modes of administration of ketamine, and to study different methods of sustaining antidepressant response, such as repeated administrations.
谷氨酸能系统功能障碍与双相情感障碍的病理生理学有关。这是对 2015 年 Cochrane 综述的更新,用于评估谷氨酸受体调节剂在双相情感障碍中的抑郁中的作用。
我们检索了 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、Ovid MEDLINE、Embase 和 PsycINFO 所有年份至 2020 年 7 月。我们没有对日期、语言或出版状态施加任何限制。
比较氯胺酮或其他谷氨酸受体调节剂与其他活性精神药物或盐水安慰剂在双相抑郁成人中的 RCT。
两位综述作者独立选择纳入的研究,评估试验质量并提取数据。主要结局是反应率和不良事件。次要结局包括缓解率、抑郁严重程度变化评分、自杀意念、认知、生活质量和脱落率。使用 GRADE 框架评估证据的确定性。
本综述纳入了 10 项研究(647 名参与者)(与 2015 年综述相比,另有 5 项研究比较了氯胺酮、美金刚和胞嘧啶与安慰剂)。在 2015 年关于氯胺酮、美金刚和胞嘧啶与安慰剂的 Cochrane 综述中,没有发现新的比较。然而,发现了三个新的比较:氯胺酮与咪达唑仑、N-乙酰半胱氨酸与安慰剂和利鲁唑与安慰剂。研究的谷氨酸受体调节剂包括氯胺酮(三项试验)、美金刚(两项)、胞嘧啶(一项)、N-乙酰半胱氨酸(三项)和利鲁唑(一项)。其中八项研究为安慰剂对照和两臂研究。在七项试验中,谷氨酸受体调节剂已作为心境稳定剂的附加药物使用。只有一项试验将氯胺酮与活性对照物咪达唑仑进行了比较。治疗期从单次静脉给药(所有氯胺酮研究)到重复给药(利鲁唑、美金刚、胞嘧啶和 N-乙酰半胱氨酸的随访时间分别为 8 周、8-12 周、12 周和 16-20 周)。六项研究的地点在美国,一项在台湾,一项在丹麦,一项在澳大利亚,一项研究地点不明。所有参与者均有双相情感障碍的主要诊断,并经历了双相情感障碍的急性抑郁发作,根据《精神障碍诊断与统计手册第四版》(IV)或第四版文本修订版(IV-TR)诊断。在本综述纳入的所有谷氨酸受体调节剂中,只有氯胺酮在输注后 24 小时似乎比安慰剂更有效,反应率的优势比(OR)为 11.61,95%置信区间(CI)为 1.25 至 107.74;P=0.03;参与者=33;研究=2;I²=0%,低确定性证据)。氯胺酮似乎在降低抑郁评分方面更有效(MD-11.81,95%CI-20.01 至-3.61;P=0.005;参与者=32;研究=2;I=0%,非常低确定性证据)。在 24 小时时,没有证据表明氯胺酮能比安慰剂更有效地产生缓解(OR 5.16,95%CI 0.51 至 52.30;P=0.72;参与者=33;研究=2;I=0%,非常低确定性证据)。由于低确定性证据,氯胺酮与咪达唑仑在 24 小时时的反应、缓解或抑郁评分之间的证据不确定(OR 3.20,95%CI 0.23 至 45.19)。在评估氯胺酮和咪达唑仑的唯一一项试验中,由于不良事件或任何其他原因,没有参与者脱落(非常低确定性证据)。N-乙酰半胱氨酸可能比安慰剂更有效地降低三个月时的抑郁评分,尽管这是基于非常低确定性的证据(MD 1.28,95%CI 0.24 至 2.31;参与者=58;研究=2)。非常不确定的证据发现,三个月时的反应无差异(OR 0.82,95%CI 0.32 至 2.14;参与者=69;研究=2;非常低确定性证据)。没有数据可用于缓解或可接受性。关于利鲁唑与安慰剂的非常有限的数据仅发现脱落率的差异无统计学意义(OR 2.00,95%CI 0.31 至 12.84;P=0.46;参与者=19;研究=1;I=0%)。
由于证据的确定性为低至非常低,并且双相情感障碍可分析的数据相对较少,远少于单相抑郁症的信息,因此我们很难从本综述中得出可靠的结论。尽管如此,我们发现,在双相抑郁的反应率方面,单次静脉注射氯胺酮(作为心境稳定剂的附加药物)可能优于安慰剂,在 24 小时内,然而,氯胺酮在双相抑郁中的缓解效果并没有更好。尽管氯胺酮有可能产生快速而短暂的抗抑郁作用,但单次静脉注射的疗效可能有限。我们没有发现关于氯胺酮不良事件的结论性证据,对于其余的谷氨酸受体调节剂,也没有足够的证据得出有意义的结论。然而,氯胺酮的致幻作用(如幻觉或谵妄)可能会影响一些研究的研究盲法,因此我们不能排除研究中因不充分的盲法程序而引入的潜在偏倚。为了得出更稳健的结论,需要进一步进行方法学上合理的 RCT(有足够的盲法),以探索氯胺酮的不同给药方式,并研究维持抗抑郁反应的不同方法,如重复给药。