Efficacy and safety of adjunctive therapy using esketamine or racemic ketamine for adult treatment-resistant depression: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study
- PMID: 31786030
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.086
Efficacy and safety of adjunctive therapy using esketamine or racemic ketamine for adult treatment-resistant depression: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study
Abstract
Background: Ketamine and its enantiomers have recently been highlighted as one of the most effective therapeutic options in refractory depression. However, racemic ketamine and esketamine have not been directly compared. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of esketamine compared to ketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).
Methods: This is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, bicentre, non-inferiority clinical trial, with two parallel groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a 40-min single intravenous infusion of ketamine 0.5 mg/kg or esketamine 0.25 mg/kg. The primary outcome was the difference in remission rates for depression 24 h following intervention using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), with a non-inferiority margin of 20%.
Results: 63 subjects were included and randomly assigned (29 to receive ketamine and 34 to receive esketamine). At 24 h, 24.1% of participants in the ketamine group and 29.4% of participants in the esketamine group showed remission, with a difference of 5.3% (95% CILB -13.6%), confirming non-inferiority. MADRS scores improved from 33 (SD 9.3) to 16.2 (SD 10.7) in the ketamine group and from 33 (SD 5.3) to 17.5 (SD 12.2) in the esketamine one, with a difference of -5.27% (95% CILB, -13.6). Both groups presented similar mild side effects.
Conclusions: Esketamine was non-inferior to ketamine for TRD 24 h following infusion. Both treatments were effective, safe, and well tolerated.
Trial registration: Registered in Japan Primary Registries Network: UMIN000032355.
Keywords: Esketamine; Ketamine; Major depressive disorder; Non-inferiority; Treatment resistant depression; Unipolar depression.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest LCQ reports consulting fees from Allergan, Abbot, Janssen Pharmaceutical and Lundbeck and research fees from Janssen Pharmaceutical. ALTL reports grants and personal fees from Janssen Pharmaceutical, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Cristalia Produtos Químicos e Farmacêuticos, Libbs, Pfizer, Myralis Farma, Aché Laboratórios, Hypera Pharmaand Sanofi-Aventis, grants from Eli Lilly, H. Lundbeck A/S, Servier Laboratories, Hoffman-La Roche, Forum Pharmaceuticalsand from public programs: CNPq and FAPESP; LMS received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo Brasil, Lundbeck Brasil, Moksha8 Brasil, Takeda Brasil, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Torrent Pharma. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Comment in
-
Letter to the editor - Comparative efficacy of racemic ketamine and esketamine for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Affect Disord. 2021 Mar 15;283:265-266. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.026. Epub 2021 Jan 20. J Affect Disord. 2021. PMID: 33571796 No abstract available.
-
Evaluation of the Trajectory of Depression Severity With Ketamine and Esketamine Treatment in a Clinical Setting.JAMA Psychiatry. 2022 Jul 1;79(7):736-738. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.1074. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022. PMID: 35544190 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
- Actions
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
