氯胺酮还是电痉挛疗法?我们从 KetECT 和 ELEKT-D 试验中学到了什么?

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ijnp/pyad065
Joakim Ekstrand, Akihiro Takamiya, Axel Nordenskjold, George Kirov, Pascal Sienaert, Charles H Kellner, Pouya Movahed Rad
{"title":"氯胺酮还是电痉挛疗法?我们从 KetECT 和 ELEKT-D 试验中学到了什么?","authors":"Joakim Ekstrand, Akihiro Takamiya, Axel Nordenskjold, George Kirov, Pascal Sienaert, Charles H Kellner, Pouya Movahed Rad","doi":"10.1093/ijnp/pyad065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.</p>","PeriodicalId":14134,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10829070/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ketamine or ECT? What Have We Learned From the KetECT and ELEKT-D Trials?\",\"authors\":\"Joakim Ekstrand, Akihiro Takamiya, Axel Nordenskjold, George Kirov, Pascal Sienaert, Charles H Kellner, Pouya Movahed Rad\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijnp/pyad065\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10829070/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyad065\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijnp/pyad065","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近进行的两项临床试验(KetECT 和 ELEKT-D)比较了氯胺酮和电休克疗法(ECT)对重度抑郁症的疗效。值得注意的是,这些试验报告显示,电休克疗法的临床疗效存在明显差异,KetECT的缓解率为63%,而ELEKT-D的缓解率则低得惊人,仅为22%,而氯胺酮的缓解率分别为46%和38%。考虑到这两项试验的主要目的是比较标准疗法(电痉挛疗法)和实验性干预(氯胺酮),因此强调电痉挛疗法临床疗效的明显差异至关重要。本文对这些试验进行了全面的比较,同时还探讨了患者特征、治疗方案和研究设计是如何导致如此明显的结果差异的。这些差异凸显了抑郁症的异质性,强调了个性化治疗的必要性。这些研究还为确定氯胺酮和电痉挛疗法的最合适人选提供了宝贵的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ketamine or ECT? What Have We Learned From the KetECT and ELEKT-D Trials?

1. Two recent clinical trials, KetECT and ELEKT-D, compared the effectiveness of ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for major depressive disorder. Notably, these trials reported marked differences in ECT's clinical outcomes of, with remission rates of 63% for KetECT and a strikingly lower rate of 22% for ELEKT-D, while the remission rates for ketamine were 46% and 38%, respectively. Considering that the primary objective of both trials was to compare the standard treatment (ECT) with an experimental intervention (ketamine), it is crucial to highlight the pronounced disparities in ECT's clinical outcomes. This article offers a comprehensive comparison of these trials while also exploring how patient characteristics, treatment protocols, and study designs may contribute to such pronounced outcome discrepancies. These differences highlight the heterogeneous nature of depression and underscore the need for personalized treatments. These studies also provide valuable insights into identifying the most suitable candidates for ketamine and ECT.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
230
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The central focus of the journal is on research that advances understanding of existing and new neuropsychopharmacological agents including their mode of action and clinical application or provides insights into the biological basis of psychiatric disorders and thereby advances their pharmacological treatment. Such research may derive from the full spectrum of biological and psychological fields of inquiry encompassing classical and novel techniques in neuropsychopharmacology as well as strategies such as neuroimaging, genetics, psychoneuroendocrinology and neuropsychology.
期刊最新文献
Anhedonia is associated with a specific depression profile and poor antidepressant response. 17β-estradiol Ameliorates Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction in Aged Mice via miR-138-5p/SIRT1/HMGB1 Pathway. Risk of cognitive decline among patients with dengue virus infection: A systematic review. Epigenome-Wide DNA Methylation in Unipolar Depression: Predictive Biomarker of Antidepressant Treatment Response? Behavioral and neurophysiological signatures of cognitive control in humans and rats.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1