IN Esketamine and IV Ketamine: Results of a multi-site observational study assessing the effectiveness and tolerability of two novel therapies for treatment-resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous (IV) ketamine and intranasal (IN) esketamine are novel therapies to manage treatment resistant depression within major depressive disorder (MDD-TRD). This is a multi-site observational study aiming to assess the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of these novel therapies in the management of MDD-TRD. 53 patients were referred to receive IV ketamine (n = 26, 69.23 % female, 52.81 ± 14.33 years old) or IN esketamine (n = 27, 51.85 % female, 43.93 ± 13.57 years old). Treatment effectiveness was assessed using the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) for depression severity and item 10 of the MADRS for suicidal ideation (SI). Tolerability was assessed by systematically tracking side effects and depersonalization using the 6-item Clinician administered dissociative symptom scale (CADSS-6). The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, risk ratio and effect size. Both IV ketamine and IN esketamine significantly reduced depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation by treatment endpoint. Patients receiving IN esketamine, and patients receiving IV ketamine had a similar risk of developing side effects. All side effects reported were mild and transient. These results suggested that both IV ketamine and IN esketamine are effective in the management of depressive symptoms and were well tolerated. Therefore, the results of this study could serve to inform clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".