寻找氯胺酮治疗难治性重度抑郁症的最佳剂量配方。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Pharmacological Reports Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1007/s43440-024-00637-x
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新近的证据表明,静脉注射氯胺酮可有效治疗耐药性单相和双相抑郁症。临床研究强调,在以实际体重为基础的 0.5-1.0 mg/kg 剂量范围内,氯胺酮具有良好的疗效、安全性和耐受性。然而,有关其他剂量计算方法的数据,尤其是与体重指数(BMI)和治疗效果相关的数据,仍然十分有限:这项开放标签研究的回顾性分析旨在评估耐药重度抑郁症(MDD)住院患者(n = 28)的剂量计算策略及其对治疗反应的影响。研究采用 Boer 和 Devine 公式确定瘦体重 (LBM) 和理想体重 (IBW),并采用 Mosteller 公式估算体表面积 (BSA)。然后将计算得出的剂量与实际用药剂量进行比较,或转换成有反应和无反应患者的每平方米用药剂量:结果:无论治疗反应如何,即蒙哥马利-奥斯伯格抑郁量表(Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale)降低50%,与0.5毫克/千克的标准剂量相比,使用其他氯胺酮剂量公式都会导致剂量不足。只有两名参与者在使用德文公式时得到了较高的剂量(102.7% 和 113.0%):本研究表明,氯胺酮剂量公式(而非基于体重的 0.5 毫克/千克标准剂量)可能会导致剂量不足,并对结果解释产生潜在影响。为了提高剂量的准确性,未来的研究应考虑纳入身体阻抗分析和腰臀比测量,因为本研究没有考虑身体成分。
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
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.

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
Pharmacological Reports
Pharmacological Reports 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
6 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Retraction Note to: Anti-inflammatory role of leptin in glial cells through p38 MAPK pathway inhibition. Correction: β-Carboline derivatives are potent against acute myeloid leukemia in vitro and in vivo. Special issue: Glutamate- physiology, pathology, therapy. Interactions between metabotropic glutamate and CB1 receptors: implications for mood, cognition, and synaptic signaling based on data from mGluR and CB1R-targeting drugs. Sleep alterations in treatment-resistant depression patients undergoing ketamine treatment.
×
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