Abuse liability for esketamine in a cohort of patients undergoing an acute treatment course to manage treatment-resistant depression: a secondary analysis of an observational study in real-world clinical practicee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intranasal (IN) esketamine has become an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for the management of treatment-resistant depression within major depressive disorder (MDD-TRD). Despite these promising benefits, given the prevalence of ketamine abuse, concerns remain over the addiction liability that may be associated with esketamine treatment. Objectives: The objective of this study is to assess the real-world abuse liability of this substance by tracking changes in likeability and cravings through an acute treatment course. Design: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published multicenter observational study. Methods: Likeability and craving for esketamine were assessed using the Likeability and Cravings Questionnaire (LCQ) in MDD-TRD patients receiving an acute course of IN esketamine treatment (eight dosing sessions). The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and pre-post effect size (Cohen’s d ). Results: Twenty-three patients (52.2% female, 43.5 ± 11.9 years old) were assessed. Most patients reported a neutral liking and no cravings for esketamine after their first dosing session. These metrics did not increase significantly by treatment endpoint. MANOVA showed that neither age, sex, baseline depression scores, the presence of side effects, or the study site had a statistically significant impact on LCQ scores either alone or in combination. Conclusion: These results agree with the available literature, showing that an acute course of IN esketamine treatment was not associated with high levels of drug liking or cravings, and this did not increase through the course of eight treatments. Though larger studies are needed, esketamine does not appear to be associated with significant abuse liability when used in an acute course of treatment for patients with MDD-TRD. These are important results for this patient population and for 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".