2022
DOI: 10.1177/02698811221084055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The antidepressant effect and safety of non-intranasal esketamine: A systematic review

Abstract: Background: The introduction of esketamine into the field of psychiatry comes on the heels of excitement from studies on racemic ketamine. While the intranasal route has been the most studied to date, other modes of administration of esketamine may also be of interest in the management of depression. Aims: To systematically review the literature on non-intranasal esketamine for depression in terms of its antidepressant effect and safety. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Sch… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 61 publications
(190 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Preliminary clinical data, however, indicate that esketamine may be at least as effective in reducing depressive symptoms as racemic ketamine. 32 The suggestion that dosing of esketamine was too low to obtain a clinical antidepressant effect in the RCT, is supported by the data from our open-label treatment program. At 0.5 to 3.0 mg/kg oral esketamine administered twice a week over six weeks, HDRS17 scores decreased on average 5.9 points, which is considered clinically meaningful.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Preliminary clinical data, however, indicate that esketamine may be at least as effective in reducing depressive symptoms as racemic ketamine. 32 The suggestion that dosing of esketamine was too low to obtain a clinical antidepressant effect in the RCT, is supported by the data from our open-label treatment program. At 0.5 to 3.0 mg/kg oral esketamine administered twice a week over six weeks, HDRS17 scores decreased on average 5.9 points, which is considered clinically meaningful.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 85%