Reporting of harms in clinical trials of esketamine in depression: a systematic review.
Psychological Medicine April 26, 2023 DOI: 10.1017/s0033291723001058 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Systematic review Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Published clinical trials of esketamine in depression |
| Intervention | Esketamine |
| Measures | CONSORT Extension of Harms 21-item checklist |
| Topics | Depression Esketamine |
| Key findings | Across ten published esketamine trials, nine were rated low quality for adverse event reporting and one moderate. Compared with ClinicalTrials.gov records, 41.5% of serious and 39% of non-serious adverse events were not reported in the journal articles, mostly psychiatric and cardiovascular events, with 94% involving esketamine-group patients. The authors conclude that benefit-risk assessments based on published trial reports are flawed by incomplete harm data. |
Abstract
Abstract: While previous systematic reviews of trials evaluating conventional antidepressants highlighted inadequacies and inconsistencies in adverse event (AE) reporting, no evaluation is available on esketamine in resistant depression. The objective of this review was to assess quality of reporting AEs in all published clinical trials studying esketamine. It also aimed to compare the proportions of AEs reported in journal articles to those recorded in the ClinicalTrial.gov Registers. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of esketamine in depression were searched using Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov. The quality of reporting harms was assessed using a 21-item checklist from the CONSORT Extension of Harms (1 point by item). The total quality score was graded into four categories: high (17–21), moderate (12–16), low (7–11) and very low (0–6). Ten clinical trials were included in the analysis. Nine trials were classified as ‘low quality’ with regard to safety, one trial was classified as ‘moderate quality’. Compared to AEs recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov, we found that 41.5% of serious AEs and 39% of non-serious AEs were not reported in the published articles. Among them, the majority were psychiatric events but also cardiovascular events and 94% concerned patients from esketamine groups. Quality of AEs reporting in published clinical trials of esketamine was poor and harms were reported less frequently in journal publications than in ClinicalTrial.gov Registers. The study suggests that an assessment of the benefits/risks balance of esketamine based on the results reported in trial publications is flawed due to the poor accuracy and completeness of harm data.
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 |
Citations in the library
Cited by 29
- Extended difficulties following the use of psychedelic drugs: A mixed methods study PLoS One October 24, 2023
- History repeating: guidelines to address common problems in psychedelic science Therapeutic Advances in Psychopharmacology 2023
- Side-effects of mdma-assisted psychotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Neuropsychopharmacology April 23, 2024
- History repeating: A roadmap to address common problems in psychedelic science March 10, 2023
- Psychedelic‐assisted treatment for substance use disorder: A narrative systematic review Addiction January 30, 2025
and 24 more in the library
Cites 9
- Efficacy and Safety of Flexibly Dosed Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined With a Newly Initiated Oral Antidepressant in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Double-Blind Active-Controlled Study American Journal of Psychiatry May 21, 2019
- Efficacy of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant Treatment for Relapse Prevention in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression JAMA Psychiatry June 5, 2019
- Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine Adjunctive to Oral Antidepressant Therapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression JAMA Psychiatry December 27, 2017
- Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine for the Rapid Reduction of Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality in Patients at Imminent Risk for Suicide: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study American Journal of Psychiatry April 16, 2018
- Efficacy and Safety of Fixed-Dose Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined With a New Oral Antidepressant in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Study (TRANSFORM-1) The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology July 9, 2019
and 4 more in the library