Singh Balwinder, Kung Simon, Pazdernik Vanessa, Schak Kathryn M, Geske Jennifer, Schulte Phillip J, Frye Mark A, Vande Voort Jennifer L
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic Depression Center, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
Corresponding author: Balwinder Singh, MD, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (
J Clin Psychiatry. 2023 Feb 1;84(2):22m14548. doi: 10.4088/JCP.22m14548.
Ketamine has been redeveloped as a rapid-acting antidepressant for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). There is a paucity of literature comparing subanesthetic intravenous (IV) ketamine and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved intranasal (IN) esketamine for TRD in real-world clinical settings. We compared the efficacy and time to achieve remission/response with repeated ketamine and esketamine. An observational study of adults with TRD received up to 6 IV ketamine (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) or up to 8 IN esketamine (56- or 84-mg) treatments from August 17, 2017, to June 24, 2021. Depressive symptoms were measured utilizing the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology self-report (QIDS-SR) before and 24 hours after treatment. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate associations between time to response ( ≥ 50% change in QIDS-SR score) and remission (QIDS-SR score ≤ 5). Sixty-two adults (median age = 50 years, 65% female) received IV ketamine (76%, n = 47) or IN esketamine (24%, n = 15). Neither baseline-to-endpoint change in QIDS-SR score nor response/remission rates were significantly different between groups. Time to remission, defined as number of treatments (adjusting for age, body mass index [BMI], sex, and baseline QIDS-SR score), was faster for IV versus IN treatment (HR = 5.0, = .02). Intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine showed similar rates of response and remission in TRD patients, but the number of treatments required to achieve remission was significantly lower with IV ketamine compared to IN esketamine. These findings need to be investigated in a randomized control trial comparing these two treatment interventions.
氯胺酮已被重新开发为一种用于治疗难治性抑郁症(TRD)的速效抗抑郁药。在现实临床环境中,比较亚麻醉剂量静脉注射(IV)氯胺酮和美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的鼻内(IN)艾司氯胺酮治疗TRD的文献较少。我们比较了重复使用氯胺酮和艾司氯胺酮实现缓解/反应的疗效和时间。一项对患有TRD的成年人的观察性研究,从2017年8月17日至2021年6月24日,接受了多达6次静脉注射氯胺酮(40分钟内0.5mg/kg)或多达8次鼻内艾司氯胺酮(56mg或84mg)治疗。在治疗前和治疗后24小时,使用16项抑郁症状快速自评量表(QIDS-SR)测量抑郁症状。使用Cox比例风险模型评估达到反应(QIDS-SR评分变化≥50%)和缓解(QIDS-SR评分≤5)的时间之间的关联。62名成年人(中位年龄=50岁,65%为女性)接受了静脉注射氯胺酮(76%,n=47)或鼻内艾司氯胺酮(24%,n=15)治疗。两组之间QIDS-SR评分从基线到终点的变化以及反应/缓解率均无显著差异。定义为治疗次数(根据年龄、体重指数[BMI]、性别和基线QIDS-SR评分进行调整)的缓解时间,静脉注射治疗比鼻内治疗更快(HR=5.0,P=0.02)。静脉注射氯胺酮和鼻内艾司氯胺酮在TRD患者中显示出相似的反应和缓解率,但与鼻内艾司氯胺酮相比,静脉注射氯胺酮实现缓解所需的治疗次数显著更低。这些发现需要在一项比较这两种治疗干预措施的随机对照试验中进行研究。