A survey of drug liking and cravings in patients using sublingual or intranasal ketamine for treatment resistant depression: A preliminary evaluation of real world addictive potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ketamine has gained rapid popularity as a treatment option for treatment resistant depression (TRD). Though seen only in limited contexts, ketamine is a potential drug of abuse, addiction and diversion. Clinical ketamine studies to date have not systematically evaluated factors relevant to addiction risk in patients with TRD, but in treating patients with ketamine, risks of potential harms related to addiction must be considered. As clinical access to intravenous ketamine programs is limited in much of Canada, these considerations become even more important for clinicians who elect to offer patients less supervised, non-parenteral forms of ketamine treatment. This study explores factors relevant to addiction risk in a real-world sample of 33 patients with TRD currently or previously treated with sublingual (SL) or intranasal (IN) ketamine in the community. First, patients were surveyed using a Drug Liking and Craving Questionnaire (DLCQ) to assess their level of drug liking and craving for ketamine, and to screen for symptoms of a ketamine use disorder. Second, the pharmacy records of these patients were reviewed for red flags for addiction such as dose escalation or early refills. Third, surveys were administered to the treating psychiatrists of patients who had discontinued ketamine to determine if abuse concerns contributed to reason for discontinuation. Though limited to a small sample, results indicate that ketamine is not a universally liked or craved substance in patients with TRD. Prescribers of non-parenteral ketamine should monitor patients and prescribe cautiously. Factors related to addiction (as in the DLCQ) should be explored for clinicians to consider individual risk/benefit for judicious use of ketamine in patients with TRD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".