Treating bipolar depression with esketamine: Safety and effectiveness data from a naturalistic multicentric study on esketamine in bipolar versus unipolar <scp>treatment‐resistant</scp> depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar depression accounts for most of the disease duration in type I and type II bipolar disorder (BD), with few treatment options, often poorly tolerated. Many individuals do not respond to first-line therapeutic options, resulting in treatment-resistant bipolar depression (B-TRD). Esketamine, the S-enantiomer of ketamine, has recently been approved for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but no data are available on its use in B-TRD. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of esketamine in two samples of unipolar and bipolar TRD, providing preliminary indications of its effectiveness in B-TRD. Secondary outcomes included the evaluation of the safety and tolerability of esketamine in B-TRD, focusing on the average risk of an affective switch. METHODS: Thirty-five B-TRD subjects treated with esketamine nasal spray were enrolled and compared with 35 TRD patients. Anamnestic data and psychometric assessments (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale/MADRS, Hamilton-depression scale/HAM-D, Hamilton-anxiety scale/HAM-A) were collected at baseline (T0), at one month (T1), and three months (T2) follow up. RESULTS: A significant reduction in depressive symptoms was found at T1 and T2 compared to T0, with no significant differences in response or remission rates between subjects with B-TRD and TRD. Esketamine showed a greater anxiolytic action in subjects with B-TRD than in those with TRD. Improvement in depressive symptoms was not associated with treatment-emergent affective switch. CONCLUSIONS: Our results supported the effectiveness and tolerability of esketamine in a real-world population of subjects with B-TRD. The low risk of manic switch in B-TRD patients confirmed the safety of this treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".