Julia Kwaśna, Wiesław Jerzy Cubała, Aleksander Kwaśny, Alina Wilkowska
{"title":"寻找氯胺酮治疗难治性重度抑郁症的最佳剂量配方。","authors":"Julia Kwaśna, Wiesław Jerzy Cubała, Aleksander Kwaśny, Alina Wilkowska","doi":"10.1007/s43440-024-00637-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emerging evidence indicates that intravenous ketamine is effective in managing treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Clinical studies highlight its favorable efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile within a dosage range of 0.5-1.0 mg/kg based on actual body weight. However, data on alternative dosage calculation methods, particularly in relation to body mass index (BMI) and therapeutic outcomes, remain limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis of an open-label study aims to evaluate dose calculation strategies and their impact on treatment response among inpatients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) (n = 28). The study employed the Boer and Devine formulas to determine lean body mass (LBM) and ideal body weight (IBW), and the Mosteller formula to estimate body surface area (BSA). The calculated doses were then compared with the actual doses administered or converted to a dosage per square meter for both responders and non-responders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regardless of treatment response, defined as a reduction of 50% in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the use of alternative ketamine dosing formulas resulted in underdosing compared to the standardized dose of 0.5 mg/kg. Only two participants received higher doses (102.7% and 113.0%) when the Devine formula was applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that ketamine dosing formulas, alternative to the standardized 0.5 mg/kg based on body weight, may lead to underdosing and potentially impact outcome interpretation. To enhance dosing accuracy, future studies should consider incorporating body impedance analysis and waist-to-hip ratio measurements, as this study did not account for body composition.</p>","PeriodicalId":19947,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"1318-1324"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The quest for optimal ketamine dosing formula in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.\",\"authors\":\"Julia Kwaśna, Wiesław Jerzy Cubała, Aleksander Kwaśny, Alina Wilkowska\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43440-024-00637-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emerging evidence indicates that intravenous ketamine is effective in managing treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Clinical studies highlight its favorable efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile within a dosage range of 0.5-1.0 mg/kg based on actual body weight. However, data on alternative dosage calculation methods, particularly in relation to body mass index (BMI) and therapeutic outcomes, remain limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis of an open-label study aims to evaluate dose calculation strategies and their impact on treatment response among inpatients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) (n = 28). The study employed the Boer and Devine formulas to determine lean body mass (LBM) and ideal body weight (IBW), and the Mosteller formula to estimate body surface area (BSA). The calculated doses were then compared with the actual doses administered or converted to a dosage per square meter for both responders and non-responders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regardless of treatment response, defined as a reduction of 50% in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the use of alternative ketamine dosing formulas resulted in underdosing compared to the standardized dose of 0.5 mg/kg. Only two participants received higher doses (102.7% and 113.0%) when the Devine formula was applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that ketamine dosing formulas, alternative to the standardized 0.5 mg/kg based on body weight, may lead to underdosing and potentially impact outcome interpretation. To enhance dosing accuracy, future studies should consider incorporating body impedance analysis and waist-to-hip ratio measurements, as this study did not account for body composition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacological Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1318-1324\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43440-024-00637-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43440-024-00637-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The quest for optimal ketamine dosing formula in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder.
Background: Emerging evidence indicates that intravenous ketamine is effective in managing treatment-resistant unipolar and bipolar depression. Clinical studies highlight its favorable efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile within a dosage range of 0.5-1.0 mg/kg based on actual body weight. However, data on alternative dosage calculation methods, particularly in relation to body mass index (BMI) and therapeutic outcomes, remain limited.
Methods: This retrospective analysis of an open-label study aims to evaluate dose calculation strategies and their impact on treatment response among inpatients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) (n = 28). The study employed the Boer and Devine formulas to determine lean body mass (LBM) and ideal body weight (IBW), and the Mosteller formula to estimate body surface area (BSA). The calculated doses were then compared with the actual doses administered or converted to a dosage per square meter for both responders and non-responders.
Results: Regardless of treatment response, defined as a reduction of 50% in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the use of alternative ketamine dosing formulas resulted in underdosing compared to the standardized dose of 0.5 mg/kg. Only two participants received higher doses (102.7% and 113.0%) when the Devine formula was applied.
Conclusions: This study suggests that ketamine dosing formulas, alternative to the standardized 0.5 mg/kg based on body weight, may lead to underdosing and potentially impact outcome interpretation. To enhance dosing accuracy, future studies should consider incorporating body impedance analysis and waist-to-hip ratio measurements, as this study did not account for body composition.
期刊介绍:
Pharmacological Reports publishes articles concerning all aspects of pharmacology, dealing with the action of drugs at a cellular and molecular level, and papers on the relationship between molecular structure and biological activity as well as reports on compounds with well-defined chemical structures.
Pharmacological Reports is an open forum to disseminate recent developments in: pharmacology, behavioural brain research, evidence-based complementary biochemical pharmacology, medicinal chemistry and biochemistry, drug discovery, neuro-psychopharmacology and biological psychiatry, neuroscience and neuropharmacology, cellular and molecular neuroscience, molecular biology, cell biology, toxicology.
Studies of plant extracts are not suitable for Pharmacological Reports.