Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Combined with Antidepressants for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Meta-Analysis
Peng Liu, Shanshan Zhang, Yun Liang, Zijun Gao, Wei Gao, Buhuai Dong
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment December 1, 2022 DOI: 10.2147/ndt.s388764 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Double-blind Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 1,252 |
| Population | Patients with treatment-resistant depression |
| Intervention | Esketamine + antidepressant |
| Topics | Depression Esketamine |
| Keywords | Meta-analysis Antidepressant Depression economics Rating scale Placebo Randomized controlled trial |
| Citations | 16 |
| Key findings | Esketamine plus antidepressant significantly reduced depression severity and improved response and remission rates compared with placebo plus antidepressant in treatment-resistant depression. |
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine + antidepressant in treatment-resistant depression.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases to obtain published information on esketamine + antidepressant from inception to July 2022. We searched for randomized controlled studies on the treatment of depression with a double-blind induction phase. Outcome indicators included changes in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores before and after treatment, effective response rate, remission rate, and changes in self-rating depression scale (SDS). We analyzed data using Review Manager 5.4 and assessed the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.
Results: A total of seven articles were included, including 701 patients in the esketamine + antidepressant group and 551 in the placebo group. Meta-analysis results showed that esketamine + antidepressant could improve the MADRS score in patients with treatment-resistant depression (MD = -2.68, 95% CI -3.98 to -1.37, P < 0.0001), SDS (MD = -2.9, 95% CI -4.01 to -1.79, P < 0.00001), response rate at the end of the double-blind induction period (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.46, P = 0.0002), remission rate at the end of the double-blind induction period (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.63, P < 0.0001), Five-Dimensional Health Scale (EQ-5D-5L) (MD = 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08, P = 0.00009), Visual Analogue Scale of Health Status (EQ-VAS) (MD = 5.54, 95% CI 2.37 to 8.71, P = 0.0006).
Conclusion: Esketamine + antidepressant has an obvious curative effect in treatment-resistant depression and can rapidly improve depression in patients, quality of life and satisfaction, but minor adverse reactions can occur.
Comparable studies
Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on esketamine for depression, most cited first.
| Study | Year | Design | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative efficacy of racemic ketamine and esketamine for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis Adults with unipolar or bipolar major depression | 2020 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | n = 1,877 |
| The acute antisuicidal effects of single-dose intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine in individuals with major depression and bipolar disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Participants in randomized controlled trials of ketamine for suicidal ideation | 2020 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | n = 197 |
| Efficacy of Esketamine Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder Patients with major depressive disorder who are treatment-resistant or acutely suicidal | 2020 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | n = 774 |
| Esketamine Treatment for Depression in Adults: A PRISMA Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder | 2025 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | |
| EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RACEMIC KETAMINE AND ESKETAMINE FOR DEPRESSION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS Adults with unipolar or bipolar major depression | 2022 | Systematic review and meta-analysis | n = 2,903 |