Ketamine Safety and Tolerability in Clinical Trials for Treatment-Resistant Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ketamine has demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD); however, the safety and tolerability of ketamine in this population have not been fully described. Herein we report the largest study to date of the safety, tolerability, and acceptability of ketamine in TRD. METHOD: Data from 205 intravenous (IV) ketamine infusions (0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes) in 97 participants with DSM-IV-defined major depressive disorder (MDD) were pooled from 3 clinical trials conducted between 2006 and 2012 at 2 academic medical centers. Safety and tolerability measures included attrition, adverse events (AEs), hemodynamic changes, and assessments of psychosis and dissociation. RESULTS: The overall antidepressant response rate, defined as a ≥ 50% improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score, was 67% (65 of 97 participants). Four of 205 infusions (1.95%) were discontinued due to AEs. The overall attrition rate was 3.1% (3 of 97). In the first 4 hours after the infusion, the most common general AEs were drowsiness, dizziness, poor coordination, blurred vision, and feeling strange or unreal. Approximately one third of individuals experienced protocol-defined hemodynamic changes. Ketamine resulted in small but significant increases in psychotomimetic and dissociative symptoms (all P < .05). There were no cases of persistent psychotomimetic effects, adverse medical effects, or increased substance use in a subgroup of patients with available long-term follow-up information. CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively large group of patients with TRD, ketamine was safe and well tolerated. Further research investigating the safety of ketamine in severe and refractory depression is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00419003, NCT00548964, and NCT00768430.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".