4.6 Review

Real-world effectiveness of ketamine in treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review & meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 151, 期 -, 页码 693-709

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.04.037

关键词

Ketamine; Esketamine; Treatment resistant depression; Depression; Bipolar disorder; Suicide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ketamine shows promising clinical effectiveness in the treatment of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), as demonstrated by a systematic review and meta-analysis. The study findings indicate a substantial mean antidepressant effect, with potential benefits for even the most treatment-resistant patients.
Ketamine is a promising therapeutic option in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The acute efficacy of ketamine in TRD has been demonstrated in replicated randomised-controlled trials (RCTs), but the generalizability of RCT data to real-world practice is limited. To this end, we conducted a systematic review (Search date: 25/12/ 2021; 1482 records identified) and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the real-world clinical effectiveness of ketamine in TRD patients. Four overlapping syntheses (Total n = 2665 patients; k = 79 studies) and 32 metaregressions (Total n = 2050; k = 37) were conducted. All results suggest that the mean antidepressant effect is substantial (mean +/- 95% CI, % responded = 45 +/- 10%; p < 0.0001, % remitted = 30 +/- 5.9%; p < 0.0001, Hedges g of symptomatological improvement = 1.44 +/- 0.609; p < 0.0001), but the effect varies considerably among patients. The more treatment-resistant cases were found to remit less often (p < 0.01), but no such effect on response was evident (p > 0.05). Meta-regressions also confirmed that the therapeutic effect does not significantly decline with repeated treatments (p > 0.05). These results demonstrate that even the most treatment-resistant patients may benefit from ketamine, and that mid-to-long term treatment is effective in many patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据