Cited by 408Treatment of Major DepressionElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Comparative efficacy of racemic ketamine and esketamine for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Bahji, Anees, Vazquez, Gustavo H., Zarate, Carlos A.·2021·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Ketamine appears to have a therapeutic role in certain mental disorders, most notably depression. However, the comparative performance of different formulations of ketamine is less clear.Objectives This study aimed to assess the comparative efficacy and tolerability of racemic and esketamine for the treatment of unipolar and bipolar major depression.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant studies published since database inception and December 17, 2019.Study eligibility criteria We considered randomized controlled trials examining racemic or esketamine for the treatment of unipolar or bipolar major depression.Outcomes Primary outcomes were response and remission from depression, change in depression severity, suicidality, retention in treatment, drop-outs, and drop-outs due to adverse events.Analysis Evidence from randomized controlled trials was synthesized as rate ratios (RRs) for treatment response, disorder remission, adverse events, and withdrawals and as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, via random-effects meta-analyses.Findings 24 trials representing 1877 participants were pooled. Racemic ketamine relative to esketamine demonstrated greater overall response (RR = 3.01 vs. RR = 1.38) and remission rates (RR = 3.70 vs. RR = 1.47), as well as lower dropouts (RR = 0.76 vs. RR = 1.37).Conclusions Intravenous ketamine appears to be more efficacious than intranasal esketamine for the treatment of depression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.071

Cites

114 of 114 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One meta-analysis found that racemic ketamine produced a greater overall antidepressant response and fewer dropouts than esketamine.

    “One meta-analysis found that racemic ketamine elicited a greater overall antidepressant response and had fewer dropouts across studies than esketamine [36].”

    From Ketamine in neuropsychiatric disorders: an update (2024) · cites this paper as [36]

  • A recent meta-analysis has indicated significantly greater response (RR = 3.01 vs. RR = 1.38) and remission rates (RR = 3.70 vs. RR = 1.47), as well as lower dropouts (RR = 0.76 vs. RR = 1.37), favoring intravenous ketamine over intranasal esketamine.

    “Notably, a recent meta-analysis has indicated significantly greater response (RR = 3.01 vs. RR = 1.38) and remission rates (RR = 3.70 vs. RR = 1.47), as well as lower dropouts (RR = 0.76 vs. RR = 1.37), favoring intravenous ketamine over intranasal esketamine [118].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 115 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ochs-Ross R, Daly EJ, Zhang Y, Lane R, Lim P, Morrison RL, Hough D, Manji H, Drevets WC, Sanacora G, Steffens DC, Adler C, McShane R, Gaillard R, Wilkinson ST, Singh JB, 2019 Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus an Oral Antidepressant in Elderly Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression—TRANSFORM-3. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 10.1016/j.jagp.2019.10.008 31734084 · DOI · Paper page
  2. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014 Review Manager (RevMan), The Nordic Cochrane Centre Copenhagen.
  3. Veritas Health Innovation, 2019 Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bahji, A., Vazquez, G. H., & Zarate, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Zarate, Carlos A.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
278
Pages
542-555
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088001093
Cited by
408
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 76 · 2024: 87 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 3
FWCI
6.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2021-02-15)
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Electroconvulsive Therapy Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
ketamine, esketamine, racemic ketamine, major depressive disorder, bipolar depression, treatment response, remission, treatment discontinuation, adverse events, suicidality, intravenous administration, intranasal administration, drug efficacy comparison
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Ketamine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review