Impact of midazolam vs. saline on effect size estimates in controlled trials of ketamine as a rapid-acting antidepressant

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F19%3A10399502" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/19:10399502 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=afnEQgtoa1" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=afnEQgtoa1</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41386-019-0317-8" target="_blank" >10.1038/s41386-019-0317-8</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Impact of midazolam vs. saline on effect size estimates in controlled trials of ketamine as a rapid-acting antidepressant

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The goal of this study was to infer the effectiveness of midazolam as a comparator in preserving the blind in ketamine studies for mood disorders through patient-level analyses of efficacy trial outcomes. In this integrative data analysis (k = 9, N = 367 patients with mood disorders), clinical outcomes were compared across four groups: ketamine (midazolam-controlled), ketamine (salinecontrolled), midazolam, and saline. Ketamine doses ranged from 0.5 to 0.54 mg/kg and midazolam doses ranged from 0.02 to 0.045 mg/kg. The baseline-to-Day 1 effect size was d = 0.7 (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) for ketamine (midazolam) versus midazolam and d = 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.2) for ketamine (saline) versus saline. The effect of ketamine relative to control was larger in saline-controlled studies than in midazolam-controlled studies (t(276) = 2.32, p = 0.02). This was driven by a comparatively larger effect under midazolam than saline (t(111) = 5.40, p &lt; 0.0001), whereas there was no difference between ketamine (midazolam) versus ketamine (saline) (t(177) = 0.65, p = 0.51). Model-estimated rates of response (with 95% CI) yielded similar results: ketamine (midazolam), 45% (34-56%); ketamine (saline), 46% (34-58%); midazolam, 18% (6-30%); saline, 1% (0-11%). The response rate for ketamine was higher than the control condition for both saline (t(353) = 7.41, p &lt; 0.0001) and midazolam (t(353) = 4.59, p &lt; 0.0001). Studies that used midazolam as a comparator yielded smaller effects of ketamine than those which used saline, which was accounted for by greater improvement following midazolam compared to saline.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Impact of midazolam vs. saline on effect size estimates in controlled trials of ketamine as a rapid-acting antidepressant

Popis výsledku anglicky

The goal of this study was to infer the effectiveness of midazolam as a comparator in preserving the blind in ketamine studies for mood disorders through patient-level analyses of efficacy trial outcomes. In this integrative data analysis (k = 9, N = 367 patients with mood disorders), clinical outcomes were compared across four groups: ketamine (midazolam-controlled), ketamine (salinecontrolled), midazolam, and saline. Ketamine doses ranged from 0.5 to 0.54 mg/kg and midazolam doses ranged from 0.02 to 0.045 mg/kg. The baseline-to-Day 1 effect size was d = 0.7 (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) for ketamine (midazolam) versus midazolam and d = 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.2) for ketamine (saline) versus saline. The effect of ketamine relative to control was larger in saline-controlled studies than in midazolam-controlled studies (t(276) = 2.32, p = 0.02). This was driven by a comparatively larger effect under midazolam than saline (t(111) = 5.40, p &lt; 0.0001), whereas there was no difference between ketamine (midazolam) versus ketamine (saline) (t(177) = 0.65, p = 0.51). Model-estimated rates of response (with 95% CI) yielded similar results: ketamine (midazolam), 45% (34-56%); ketamine (saline), 46% (34-58%); midazolam, 18% (6-30%); saline, 1% (0-11%). The response rate for ketamine was higher than the control condition for both saline (t(353) = 7.41, p &lt; 0.0001) and midazolam (t(353) = 4.59, p &lt; 0.0001). Studies that used midazolam as a comparator yielded smaller effects of ketamine than those which used saline, which was accounted for by greater improvement following midazolam compared to saline.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30215 - Psychiatry

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Neuropsychopharmacology

ISSN

0893-133X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

44

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

7

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

1233-1238

Kód UT WoS článku

000467764100008

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85060915291