Patient Experience with Intranasal Esketamine in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Insights from a Multicentric Italian Study (REAL-ESKperience)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a prevalent, high-burden disorder. Esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS) has been approved for, T.R.D.; and efficacy has been observed in both clinical trials and real-world studies. However, observations integrating patients’ perspective on this treatment are limited. This multicentric Italian study explored experiences with ESK-NS in TRD patients, focusing on perceived therapeutic effects and overall satisfaction. Methods. A self-report survey was administered to 236 outpatients with TRD (55.1% females, 54.1 ± 14.1 years) treated with ESK-NS for at least three consecutive months within standard clinical care. Based on satisfaction levels, participants were classified as “unsatisfied” (10.2%), “partially satisfied” (19.1%), “satisfied” (44.4%), or “very satisfied” (26.3%), and compared for sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and feedback on perceived benefits. Artificial intelligence (OpenAI) served to categorize responses to an open-ended question. Results. Enhanced quality of life was reported by 88.4% of participants. Significant differences emerged in earliest self-perceived benefits, most relevant effects, and impact on global functioning across groups. Specifically, “very satisfied” patients described the following: early improvements in depressed mood, suicidal thoughts, and restlessness; decreased suicidal thoughts among the most significant effects; and functional gains across all domains. OpenAI identified experiences of personal growth and rediscovery and a desire for tailored settings and approaches as recurring topics. Conclusions. Most patients reported a positive perception of ESK-NS treatment. The most satisfied participants highlighted significant benefits to depressed mood, suicidal thoughts, and overall functioning. Patient-reported experiences offer insights into different psychopathological dimensions, including functional outcomes and quality of life. Integrating these perspectives into clinical practice might assist treatment personalization, improving patients’ adherence and satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".