A recent review compared the efficacy of intravenous (IV) ketamine and intranasal esketamine in treating treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Both treatments are known for their rapid antidepressant effects, but IV ketamine appears to have several advantages over intranasal esketamine.
Intranasal Esketamine: Esketamine, marketed as Spravato, is administered as a nasal spray. It has undergone extensive clinical trials, leading to its FDA approval. The trials demonstrated that esketamine, when combined with an oral antidepressant, significantly reduced depressive symptoms compared to a placebo. The typical administration involves an induction phase with twice-weekly doses followed by a maintenance phase with weekly or biweekly doses. Despite its effectiveness, esketamine requires close monitoring due to potential side effects, such as increased blood pressure and dissociation
Intravenous Ketamine: IV ketamine, although not FDA-approved specifically for depression, has shown strong antidepressant effects in numerous placebo-controlled trials. A systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that IV ketamine is nearly three times more effective than intranasal esketamine. The study included 24 randomized controlled trials with 1,877 participants, showing that IV ketamine had higher response and remission rates, as well as lower dropout rates due to side effects. The rapid action of IV ketamine, often within hours, and its sustained effects, lasting up to a week, make it a compelling option for TRD
Comparative Effectiveness: The meta-analysis highlighted that racemic ketamine (IV) demonstrated greater overall response and remission rates compared to esketamine (intranasal). Specifically, the response rates for IV ketamine were significantly higher, and patients were more likely to achieve remission. Additionally, the lower dropout rates for IV ketamine suggest better tolerability and fewer side effects, which is crucial for long-term treatment adherence
Despite these advantages, IV ketamine has not received FDA approval, possibly due to concerns about side effects such as dissociation and potential for abuse. However, the studies reviewed showed that side effects did not significantly impact patient dropout rates. The lack of insurance coverage for both treatments remains a barrier, although the effectiveness of ketamine could potentially reduce overall healthcare costs by decreasing medication nonadherence, relapse, and rehospitalizations
In summary, while both treatments offer rapid relief for TRD, IV ketamine outperforms intranasal esketamine in terms of efficacy, response rates, and tolerability. The findings suggest a need for reconsidering regulatory and insurance frameworks to improve accessibility to these promising treatments for patients with TRD.
For more detailed information, you can read the full article here
Comments