Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Veterans Affairs Maine Healthcare System, Augusta, ME, USA.
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2024;15(1):2299124. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2299124. Epub 2024 Jan 15.
PTSD is a significant mental health problem worldwide. Current evidence-based interventions suffer various limitations. Ketamine is a novel agent that is hoped to be incrementally better than extant interventions. Several randomized control trials (RCTs) of ketamine interventions for PTSD have now been published. We sought to systematically review and meta-analyse results from these trials to evaluate preliminary evidence for ketamine's incremental benefit above-and-beyond control interventions in PTSD treatment. Omnibus findings from 52 effect sizes extracted across six studies (= 221) yielded a small advantage for ketamine over control conditions at reducing PTSD symptoms (= 0.27, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.51). However, bias-correction estimates attenuated this effect (adjusted = 0.20, 95%, CI = -0.08, 0.48). Bias estimates indicated smaller studies reported larger effect sizes favouring ketamine. The only consistent timepoint assessed across RCTs was 24-hours post-initial infusion. Effects at 24-hours post-initial infusion suggest ketamine has a small relative advantage over controls (= 0.35, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.64). Post-hoc analyses at 24-hours post-initial infusion indicated that ketamine was significantly better than passive controls (= 0.44, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.85), but not active controls (= 0.24, 95% CI = -0.30, 0.78). Comparisons one-week into intervention suggested no meaningful group differences (= 0.24, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.48). No significant differences were evident for RCTs that examined effects two-weeks post initial infusion (= 0.17, 95% CI = -0.10, 0.44). Altogether, ketamine-for-PTSD RCTs reveal a nominal initial therapeutic advantage relative to controls. However, bias and heterogeneity appear problematic. While rapid acting effects were observed, all control agents (including saline) also evidenced rapid acting effects. We argue blind penetration to be a serious concern, and that placebo is the likely mechanism behind reported therapeutic effects.
创伤后应激障碍是全球范围内一个重大的心理健康问题。目前基于证据的干预措施存在各种局限性。氯胺酮是一种新的药物,有望比现有的干预措施更好。目前已经发表了几项氯胺酮干预创伤后应激障碍的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们旨在系统地回顾和荟萃分析这些试验的结果,以评估氯胺酮在创伤后应激障碍治疗中优于对照干预的初步证据。从六项研究中提取的 52 个效应量的总体结果(= 221)表明,氯胺酮治疗组在降低创伤后应激障碍症状方面优于对照组,优势比为 0.27(95%置信区间为 0.03,0.51)。然而,偏倚校正估计值削弱了这种效应(调整后= 0.20,95%置信区间为-0.08,0.48)。偏倚估计表明,较小的研究报告了有利于氯胺酮的更大效应量。仅在 RCT 中评估了一致的时间点,即初始输注后 24 小时。在初始输注后 24 小时评估的效果表明,氯胺酮相对于对照组有较小的相对优势(= 0.35,95%置信区间为 0.06,0.64)。在初始输注后 24 小时的事后分析中,氯胺酮明显优于被动对照组(= 0.44,95%置信区间为 0.03,0.85),但不如主动对照组(= 0.24,95%置信区间为-0.30,0.78)。在干预后一周的比较中,没有发现有意义的组间差异(= 0.24,95%置信区间为 0.00,0.48)。在初始输注后两周检查效果的 RCT 中,没有发现显著差异(= 0.17,95%置信区间为-0.10,0.44)。总的来说,氯胺酮治疗创伤后应激障碍的 RCT 显示相对于对照组有一个名义上的初始治疗优势。然而,偏倚和异质性似乎是个问题。虽然观察到快速作用的效果,但所有的对照药物(包括生理盐水)也表现出快速作用的效果。我们认为盲目穿透是一个严重的问题,而报告的治疗效果可能是安慰剂的作用机制。