0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

A Randomized Add-on Trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate Antagonist in Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression FREE

Nancy Diazgranados, MD, MS; Lobna Ibrahim, MD; Nancy E. Brutsche, MSN; Andrew Newberg, MD; Phillip Kronstein, MD; Sami Khalife, MD; William A. Kammerer, MD; Zenaide Quezado, MD; David A. Luckenbaugh, MA; Giacomo Salvadore, MD; Rodrigo Machado-Vieira, MD, PhD; Husseini K. Manji, MD, FRCPC; Carlos A. Zarate Jr, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Experimental Therapeutics, Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, Maryland. Dr Newberg is now at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Dr Kronstein is now with the US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland; Dr Khalife is now at the Manhattan Psychiatric Center, New York, New York; and Dr Manji is now with Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals, New Brunswick, New Jersey.


Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(8):793-802. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.90.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context  Existing therapies for bipolar depression have a considerable lag of onset of action. Pharmacological strategies that produce rapid antidepressant effects—for instance, within a few hours or days—would have an enormous impact on patient care and public health.

Objective  To determine whether an N-methyl-D-aspartate–receptor antagonist produces rapid antidepressant effects in subjects with bipolar depression.

Design  A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover, add-on study conducted from October 2006 to June 2009.

Setting  Mood Disorders Research Unit at the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Patients  Eighteen subjects with DSM-IV bipolar depression (treatment-resistant).

Interventions  Subjects maintained at therapeutic levels of lithium or valproate received an intravenous infusion of either ketamine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo on 2 test days 2 weeks apart. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale was used to rate subjects at baseline and at 40, 80, 110, and 230 minutes and on days 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, and 14 postinfusion.

Main Outcome Measures  Change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale primary efficacy measure scores.

Results  Within 40 minutes, depressive symptoms significantly improved in subjects receiving ketamine compared with placebo (d = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.76); this improvement remained significant through day 3. The drug difference effect size was largest at day 2 (d = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.55-1.04). Seventy-one percent of subjects responded to ketamine and 6% responded to placebo at some point during the trial. One subject receiving ketamine and 1 receiving placebo developed manic symptoms. Ketamine was generally well tolerated; the most common adverse effect was dissociative symptoms, only at the 40-minute point.

Conclusion  In patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression, robust and rapid antidepressant effects resulted from a single intravenous dose of an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00088699

Figures in this Article

Bipolar disorder (BPD) is one of the most severe psychiatric disorders and ranks in the top 10 causes of medical disability worldwide. The lifetime prevalence is approximately 4% in the United States,1 with depressive symptomatology dominating the longitudinal course of the illness.2 Currently approved treatments for bipolar depression include lithium, quetiapine, and the combination olanzapine and fluoxetine. Other treatments used during the depressive phase of the illness include lamotrigine, antidepressants, and atypical antipsychotics. However, many patients with bipolar depression do not respond adequately to these medications despite adequate trials.24 Another limitation of existing therapeutics is that they are associated with a considerable lag of onset; only a fraction of patients meet response criteria by the end of the first week of treatment.57 This delayed onset of antidepressant effects can result in considerable morbidity, including increased suicide risk.8,9 Therefore, rapid-onset pharmacological strategies with pronounced and sustained effects would have an enormous impact on public health; this is particularly true because BPD is perhaps the psychiatric disorder with the highest mortality rate.10

Reasons for this lack of better therapeutics include our limited understanding of the neurobiological basis of BPD and of the mechanism of action of existing effective medications.11,12 With the exception of lithium, all pharmacological agents currently used to treat BPD were developed to treat other illnesses (ie, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants). However, several lines of evidence have recently converged to suggest that glutamatergic system dysfunction—particularly the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)–receptor complex—may play an important role in the pathophysiology of BPD. For example, postmortem studies have reported altered NMDA-receptor complexes in the brain tissue of patients with BPD.1315 At the genetic level, polymorphisms of the GRIN1 and GRIN2B genes coding for the NR1 and NR2B subunits, respectively, have been associated with BPD.16,17 Finally the glutamatergic modulator riluzole was found to have antidepressant properties and to enhance glutamatergic neurotransmission in patients with BPD18,19 as well as enhance the surface expression of the α-amino-3-hydroxyl-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) receptor subunit GluR1 in cultured hippocampal mouse neurons.20

Therefore, testing the efficacy and safety of glutamatergic modulators in patients with BPD could yield a better understanding of the neurobiological processes involved in this complex illness and lead to the development of improved treatments. N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists are important candidate drugs for this purpose. They are associated with known antidepressant effects in several animal models of depression,2126 and clinical studies show that they induce a rapid-onset antidepressant response (within 2 hours) in individuals with major depressive disorder.2729 Based on knowledge gleaned from preclinical and clinical studies, we postulated that directly targeting the NMDA receptor would bring about rapid antidepressant effects in patients with bipolar depression. The objective of the present trial was to determine whether a single intravenous infusion of an NMDA antagonist in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression would result in a rapid antidepressant response. Ketamine, a noncompetitive NMDA antagonist, was selected for this study because it has an established safety profile in both research and clinical settings, particularly when used in subanesthetic doses.28,30 We elected to study treatment-resistant patients who had failed to respond to prior treatments, in part because ketamine is associated with dissociative symptoms.

PATIENT SELECTION

Subjects were recruited from local inpatient psychiatric units, the Internet, and local and national physician referrals. Eligible participants were men and women aged 18 to 65 years who were inpatients with a diagnosis of bipolar I or II depression without psychotic features, as diagnosed by the Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I DSM-IV Disorders, Patient Version.31 Final diagnoses of bipolar depression and other Axis I disorders (as permitted in the study) were ascertained by general consensus of 3 clinicians using all available information (Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I DSM-IV Disorders, clinical interviews, and [in most cases] interviews with someone who knew the patient well). Subjects were studied at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Mood Disorders Research Unit in Bethesda, Maryland, between October 2006 and June 2009. Subjects were required to have a score of 20 or more on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at screening and at the start of each ketamine or placebo infusion. Patients were also required to have a current major depressive episode of at least 4 weeks, to have previously failed at least 1 adequate antidepressant trial (as assessed by the Antidepressant Treatment History Form, modified32), and to have failed a prospective open trial of a mood stabilizer while at the NIMH (either lithium or valproate for a minimum period of 4 weeks at therapeutic levels [serum lithium, 0.6-1.2 mEq/L; or valproic acid, 50-125 μg/mL]).

All subjects were in good physical health as determined by medical history, physical examination, blood laboratory tests, electrocardiography, chest radiography, urinalysis, and toxicology. Subjects were free from comorbid substance abuse or dependence for at least 3 months and judged clinically not to be at serious risk of suicide. Comorbid Axis I anxiety disorder diagnoses were permitted if they were not the primary focus of treatment within 12 months before screening. Patients who were rapid cyclers (≥4 mood episodes within 12 months, based on DSM-IV criteria) were included. Exclusion criteria included any serious unstable medical disorder or condition, previous treatment with ketamine, or concomitant treatment with psychotropic medications other than lithium or valproate in the 2 weeks before randomization (5 weeks for fluoxetine); in addition, female subjects could not be pregnant or nursing. The study was approved by the Combined Neuroscience institutional review board at the National Institutes of Health. All subjects provided written informed consent before entry into the study and were assigned a clinical research advocate from the NIMH Subjects Protection Unit to monitor the consent process and research participation throughout the study.

Conservative estimates of expected change in depressive symptoms in response to ketamine were based on previous studies of individuals with major depressive disorder; thus, a sample size of 19 was initially expected to reach 90% power with a 2-tailed test. The power analysis was based on response rates at day 1.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled study conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of a single intravenous infusion of the NMDA antagonist ketamine combined with lithium or valproate therapy in the treatment of bipolar I or II depression. As noted previously, subjects were first required to have failed to respond to a prospective open trial of therapeutic levels of either lithium or valproate at the NIMH for a minimum of 4 weeks, regardless of whether they were already taking therapeutic levels of lithium or valproate at admission. During the entirety of the study, patients were required to take either lithium or valproate within the specified range and were not allowed to receive any other psychotropic medications (including benzodiazepines) or to receive structured psychotherapy. Lithium and valproate levels were obtained weekly. Vital signs and oximetry were monitored during the infusion and for 1 hour after. Electrocardiograms, complete blood counts, electrolyte panels, and liver function tests were obtained at baseline and at the end of the study.

Following nonresponse to open treatment with lithium or valproate and a 2-week drug-free period (except for treatment with lithium or valproate), subjects received intravenous infusions of saline solution and 0.5-mg/kg ketamine hydrochloride 2 weeks apart using a randomized, double-blind, crossover design. The ketamine dose was based on previous controlled studies of patients with major depressive disorder.30,33,34

Patients were randomly assigned to the order in which they received the 2 infusions via a random-numbers chart. Study solutions were supplied in identical 50-mL syringes containing either 0.9% of saline or ketamine with the additional volume of saline to total 50 mL. Ketamine forms a clear solution when dissolved in 0.9% saline. The infusions were administered over 40 minutes via a Baxter infusion pump (Deerfield, Illinois) by an anesthesiologist in the perianesthesia care unit. All staff, including the anesthesiologist, was blind to whether drug or placebo was being administered.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Subjects were rated 60 minutes prior to the infusion and at 40, 80, 110, and 230 minutes postinfusion. They were also rated at days 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, and 14 postinfusion. Rating scales included the MADRS, which was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Scale for Depression,35 the Beck Depression Inventory,36 the visual analog scale,37 the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale,38 the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale,39 the Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale,40 and the Young Mania Rating Scale.41 Ratings for symptoms that could not change over brief periods of time (eg, sleep, appetite) were carried forward from the initial ratings for those time points. The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale was performed at all time points except for minutes 40, 80, and 110. Patient ratings were performed by research nurses, a physician, and a psychologist who trained together to establish reliability. High interrater reliability was obtained for the MADRS (interrater correlation coefficient = 0.88), Hamilton Scale for Depression (interrater correlation coefficient = 0.81), and Young Mania Rating Scale (interrater correlation coefficient = 0.91). Throughout the study, the same rater conducted most ratings for an individual patient.

KETAMINE AND NORKETAMINE PLASMA LEVELS

Ketamine and norketamine (ketamine's active metabolite) plasma levels were obtained at 40, 80, 110, and 230 minutes postinfusion (see the eAppendix for relevant methods.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Linear mixed models with fixed, repeated-measures factors for time and treatment were used with fixed and random intercepts, a random factor for participant, and restricted maximum likelihood estimates. Main effects for time and treatment as well as their interaction were included in the model along with a fixed main effect for treatment order. Schwarz Bayesian criteria were used to determine the best-fitting variance-covariance structure, a first-order autoregressive model. For significant interactions, Bonferroni-corrected simple-effects post hoc tests were used to determine the timing of treatment differences. Cohen d was calculated to illustrate the effect size of specific comparisons. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine the normality of the data. Significance was evaluated at P < .05, 2-tailed.

The primary analysis—intent to treat—included all available data; all randomized patients had baseline and at least 1 postbaseline measure. Carryover effects were examined by comparing the baseline values in each study phase within the various analysis models.

Response (50% improvement from baseline on MADRS) and remission (MADRS scores <10) rates were examined at each time point using the McNemar test and correcting for the number of comparisons using the Hochberg adjusted Bonferroni procedure.

PATIENTS

Fifty-five subjects were screened, and 18 who met DSM-IV criteria for bipolar depression were randomized (Figure 1). In total, 13 of 18 (72%) subjects completed both phases. Three patients dropped out in the first randomized phase of the study: 1 patient 1 day after infusion owing to worsening mood/suicidal ideation (this subject had a history of suicide attempts and suicidal ideation on and off prior to study entry), 1 patient 3 days after infusion owing to low mood, and another 10 days after infusion owing to hypomania. In the second phase, 1 patient dropped out after 8 days owing to high anxiety, and another dropped out after 10 days owing to low mood. Four of the 5 dropouts were taking valproate for mood stabilization. The patient who dropped out owing to hypomania was receiving placebo, and the other dropouts occurred during the ketamine phase. Thirteen of 17 (76%) subjects completed the ketamine phase and 15 of 16 (94%) subjects completed the placebo phase. Nine of 10 (90%) patients using lithium as a mood stabilizer completed the study; in contrast, 4 of 8 (50%) patients using valproate completed the study (Fisher exact test, P = .12).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Enrollment, randomization, withdrawals, and completion of the 2 treatment phases (n = 18).

Graphic Jump Location

Demographic and clinical characteristics for the subjects are summarized in Table 1. Current and lifetime treatment trials are listed in Table 2.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Bipolar Disorder (n=18)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Medication Use During Current Major Depressive Episode and Patient's Lifetime (n=18)

Mean lithium levels prior to the first ketamine infusion were 0.77 mEq/L (SD, 0.14 mEq/L) and mean valproate levels were 74.38 μg/mL (SD, 13.02 μg/mL). No patient deviated from therapeutic levels during the study.

EFFICACY

Using all available data in the intent-to-treat sample (see the “Methods” section) and with the MADRS score as the primary outcome measure, the linear mixed model indicated a significant interaction between time and drug (F10,245 = 3.22, P < .001). Post hoc tests showed significantly fewer depressive symptoms when patients were receiving ketamine compared with placebo from 40 minutes to 3 days postinfusion (P < .001) (Figure 2). Comparisons at baseline and at days 7, 10, and 14 postinfusion were not significant following correction for multiple comparisons (P = .46, P = .21, P = .13, and P = .09, respectively). The effect sizes were 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.76) at 40 minutes, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42-0.91) at day 1, and 0.22 (95% CI, −0.03 to 0.48) at day 14. The largest effect was seen 2 days after infusion (d = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.04).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Change in depression scale scores during 2 weeks in patients with bipolar disorder given placebo and ketamine (n = 18). Values are expressed as generalized least-square means and standard errors for the intent-to-treat analysis. BDI indicates Beck Depression Inventory; HAM-D, 17-item Hamilton Scale for Depression; MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; *P < .001; †P < .01; and ‡P < .05.

Graphic Jump Location

Examining subjects who completed the study yielded similar results. The interaction between drug and time was significant (F10,191 = 2.55, P = .007). Post hoc tests indicated significant drug differences from 40 minutes through day 7. The effect sizes were similar in size to the intent-to-treat analysis (eg, d = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44-1.00 at day 1).

To examine potential carryover effects in the intent-to-treat sample, a single linear mixed model was used to compare the baseline MADRS scores for each drug and drug order. The model showed no significant effects (order: F1,16 = 1.48, P = .24; drug: F1,14 = 0.01, P = .94; order × drug: F1,14 = 1.69, P = .22). Patients receiving ketamine first had a nonsignificant decrease in MADRS scores from the first baseline rating (mean MADRS score, 31.2 [SD, 4.4]) to the second-phase baseline rating (mean, 29.4 [SD, 8.1]; F14 = 0.91, P = .36). Patients receiving placebo first also had a nonsignificant decrease in MADRS scores from the first- (mean, 33.9 [SD, 4.8]) to the second-phase baseline rating (mean, 32.9 [SD, 3.8]; F14 = 0.78, P = .39).

An additional analysis was conducted to understand the potential for carryover effects. The primary analysis was run using only the first-phase data, so the drug factor was a between-subjects measure. In this case, the drug × time interaction approached significance (F10,148 = 1.71, P = .08). The drug main effect was not significant (F1,16 = 1.92, P = .19), but the time effect was significant (F10,148 = 2.93, P = .002). Given the small sample size, effect sizes were calculated to determine whether they differed between the first phase and the full study. Results indicated that effect sizes were similar to the full study. For instance, the effect at 40 minutes was 0.63 (95% CI, −0.04 to 1.30) and the effect at day 1 was 0.66 (95% CI, −0.01 to 1.33); these values compare with 0.52 and 0.67, respectively, in the full analysis.

Figure 3 shows the proportion of responders (Figure 3A) and remitters (Figure 3B) at each point in the intent-to-treat sample. No patients responded or remitted while taking placebo through the first 3 days; 1 patient (6%) receiving placebo had response and remission at days 7 and 10. Nine of 16 (56%) patients receiving ketamine responded, and 2 of 16 (13%) remitted at 40 minutes; 7 of 16 (44%) responded and 5 of 16 (31%) patients receiving ketamine remitted after 1 day.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Proportion of responders and remitters after ketamine or placebo infusion by Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. A, Proportion of responders (50% improvement on MADRS) from 40 minutes to day 14 postinfusion (n = 18). B, Proportion of remitters (MADRS score <10) from 40 minutes to day 14 postinfusion (n = 18).

Graphic Jump Location

When only completers were included in the analysis, the McNemar test showed a significantly higher response rate from 40 minutes through day 3 with ketamine, but only the result at 230 minutes remained significant after applying the Hochberg-adjusted Bonferroni procedure to adjust for multiple comparisons. None of the remission rates were significantly different. Twelve of 17 (71%) patients responded to ketamine and 1 of 16 (6%) responded to placebo at some point during the trial. The median time to initial response was 40 minutes. After responding, losing response was defined as reaching less than 25% improvement from baseline. Under those conditions, the response to ketamine lasted an average of 6.8 days (standard error, 1.4 days); 4 patients responded for 1 week, and 3 additional patients had a response lasting 2 weeks or more.

To confirm the change in depressive symptoms as assessed by the MADRS, similar statistical models were used for the secondary measures. For the Hamilton Scale for Depression, a significant interaction was observed between drug and time (F10,251 = 2.75, P = .003). When receiving ketamine, patients had fewer depressive symptoms from 40 minutes to 3 days and at 14 days postinfusion. Similar results were obtained for the Beck Depression Inventory (F10,205 = 3.76, P < .001), in which differences were present for the same times (Figure 2). With the visual analog scale, depressive symptoms were lower with ketamine from 40 minutes to 3 days postinfusion (F10,187 = 3.92, P < .001).

Anxiety symptoms, as assessed by both the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the visual analog scale, decreased significantly. A linear mixed model using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale showed significantly less anxiety for subjects receiving ketamine compared with placebo (F7,147 = 2.10, P = .047) at the first postinfusion observation and at 230 minutes through day 3. Drug differences were significant at day 10 but not at days 7 or 14 (eFigure). Similar findings were obtained with the visual analog scale, which showed significantly fewer symptoms in subjects receiving ketamine (F10,254 = 3.02, P = .001) from 40 minutes through day 2.

The linear mixed model with manic symptoms, as assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale, showed a significant interaction between time and drug (F10,220 = 2.50, P = .007) (Figure 4). Patients receiving ketamine had significantly higher scores at 40 minutes, but significantly lower scores at days 2 and 14. The difference at 40 minutes came from a nonsignificant decrease in Young Mania Rating Scale scores on placebo and a slight, nonsignificant increase when receiving ketamine. Compared with baseline, there was no significant change in manic symptoms in patients receiving placebo, but Young Mania Rating Scale scores significantly declined with ketamine from 80 minutes through day 2 postinfusion. One patient who was concomitantly receiving lithium reached a Young Mania Rating Scale score of 15 at 40 minutes while taking ketamine, but the symptoms were no longer higher than baseline by 80 minutes. Of the patients receiving placebo and valproate, one patient reached a score of 13 on day 7 and a score of 21 on day 10.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Change in psychiatric scale scores in patients with bipolar disorder given placebo and ketamine (n = 18). Values are expressed as generalized least-square means and standard errors for the intent-to-treat analysis. BPRS indicates Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; CADSS, Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale; YMRS, Young Mania Rating Scale; *P < .05; †P < .01; and ‡P < .001.

Graphic Jump Location

The statistical model for Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale positive symptoms showed a significant drug × time interaction (F10,248 = 4.45, P < .001) (Figure 4). Ketamine and placebo differed only at 40 minutes postinfusion, and this difference was due to a small, nonsignificant decrease with placebo and an even smaller increase with ketamine. On the Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale, the significant interaction (F10,263 = 16.52, P < .001) pointed to a ketamine/placebo difference at 40 minutes only where patients had a large increase on ketamine (Figure 4).

Spearman correlations were used to examine the relationship between change in depressive symptoms and in positive and dissociative symptoms. The unusual distribution of changes in positive and dissociative symptoms drove the use of the nonparametric correlation. We found no significant correlations between change in MADRS scores at various points and change in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale positive or Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale symptoms, either with ketamine or placebo. Forty minutes after ketamine infusion, the correlation between MADRS scores and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale positive symptoms was  = 0.08 (P = .76); the correlation between MADRS scores and Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale symptoms was r = 0.23 (P = .40). At day 1 postinfusion, the correlations were r = 0.09 (P = .75) for Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale positive symptoms and r = −0.08 (P = .76) for Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale symptoms.

Pearson correlations showed that plasma ketamine and norketamine levels after 40 minutes were not significantly related to change in MADRS score at 40 minutes (ketamine: r = −0.18, P = .51; norketamine: r = 0.34, P = .20). Correlations did not change after 40 minutes.

An analysis of individual MADRS items showed that 8 of 10 symptoms changed significantly, even after correction for multiple comparisons. Reduced sleep and suicidal thoughts were not significant, and reduced appetite scores were significantly increased. All other symptoms decreased significantly.

The influence of mood stabilizer on response rates was not significant with ketamine (Fisher exact test, P = .59; lithium: 8 of 10 responded [80%], valproate: 4 of 7 responded [57%]) or placebo (Fisher exact test, P = .38; lithium: 0 of 10 responded [0%], valproate: 1 of 6 responded [17%]). Time to first response to ketamine, as assessed by Kaplan-Maier survival analysis, was also not significant (log-rank test, χ21 = 1.08, P = .30; mean: lithium, 4083 minutes [standard error, 2542 minutes]; and valproate, 8679 minutes [standard error, 3758 minutes]). All responders to ketamine had an initial response within the first hours after infusion. An additional linear mixed model was performed after adding the type of mood stabilizer (lithium or valproate) as a factor in the model, but no significant effects were observed (mood stabilizer, F1,15 = 0.21, P = .65; mood stabilizer × time, F10,207 = 0.35, P = .97; mood stabilizer × drug, F1,140 = 0.65, P = .42; mood stabilizer × time × drug, F10,232 = 0.85, P = .58).

No serious adverse events occurred during the study. Adverse events occurring during the infusion in 10% or more of subjects receiving ketamine or placebo included feeling woozy or loopy, feeling lethargic or drowsy, cognitive impairment, fear or anxiety, nausea, dizziness, odd sensations, blurred vision, and headache. Adverse events associated only with ketamine (≥10% of subjects) included dissociation; feeling strange, weird, or bizarre; dry mouth; tachycardia; and increased blood pressure. The 2 subjects who experienced increased blood pressure and tachycardia returned to normal within minutes after the infusion. No adverse event was significantly different from placebo at 80 minutes or thereafter (eTable). No significant changes occurred in electrocardiography, respiratory, or laboratory values during the study.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept study found that a single intravenous infusion of an NMDA antagonist in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression resulted in a robust and rapid (within minutes) antidepressant response. To our knowledge, this is the first article detailing the rapid antidepressant effects of a single infusion of an NMDA antagonist in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression.

We found that patient depression scores improved significantly more in patients receiving ketamine than in those receiving placebo, and this improvement occurred as early as 40 minutes postinfusion. This difference was statistically significant for 4 different efficacy scales: MADRS, Hamilton Scale for Depression, self-rated Beck Depression Inventory, and visual analog scale depression, as well as the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and visual analog scale anxiety scales. These findings are particularly noteworthy because a substantial proportion of study participants had been prescribed complex polypharmacy regimens in the past with substantial treatment failures. The mean number of past antidepressant trials was 7, and more than 55% of participants failed to respond to electroconvulsive therapy. The toll of this protracted and refractory illness on the subjects was evident, in that two-thirds of participants were on psychiatric disability and nearly all were unemployed.

Compared with our previous study with ketamine in patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder,34 we found (1) more rapid onset of antidepressant effects (40 vs 110 minutes), (2) a higher response rate at 40 minutes (56% vs 11%) but lower at day 1 (42% vs 71%), (3) similar remission rates at day 1 (31% for both studies), and (4) shorter duration of antidepressant effects beyond the 2-hour half-life of ketamine42 (3 days in the present study vs 7 in the prior study). Other than the obvious reason of diagnosis, possible explanations for these differences include the concomitant use of lithium or valproate and that the patients in the present study had a more severe treatment-resistant history.

These results lend further credence to earlier controlled studies investigating the glutamatergic system, and NMDA antagonism in particular, as putatively involved in the mechanism of rapid antidepressant response.33,34 Preclinical studies postulated that ketamine's mechanism of action is initially mediated by NMDA antagonism but subsequently involves enhanced AMPA throughput. Ketamine, presumably by disinhibiting GABAergic inputs and thereby enhancing the firing rate of glutamatergic neurons, increases the presynaptic release of glutamate, resulting in increased extracellular levels of glutamate.43 This increased glutamate release preferentially favors AMPA receptors over NMDA receptors, because the latter are blocked by ketamine; the net effect of ketamine's antidepressant effect on a cellular level is thus an increased glutamatergic throughput of AMPA relative to NMDA.44

Future research will need to address whether differences in kinetics associated with intravenous administration—which allows for faster absorption and avoids hepatic metabolism—are important or necessary for rapid antidepressant effects to occur.45 Indeed, several studies of drugs with different mechanisms of action that use this method of administration report rapid onset of antidepressant effects.4648

This study is associated with several strengths. Notably, subjects were hospitalized for an average of 9 weeks prior to their first infusion, permitting sufficient time to characterize them, conduct a prospective trial of a mood stabilizer, and document the stability of depressive symptoms during their current episode. In addition, the study was randomized and placebo controlled; before randomization, patients were required to have experienced a nonresponse to a prospective trial of a minimum of 4 weeks of therapeutic levels of lithium or valproate therapy as well as a prior failed antidepressant trial.

Nevertheless, several limitations also exist, and these preliminary results require cautious interpretation. First, the group size was small. In addition, the subjects in this study were a refractory subgroup of patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression who were relatively late in their course of illness (Table 1); thus, the results may not be generalizable to patients with BPD who have different illness and course characteristics (eg, rapid cycling course and current substance use disorders). Another key issue is the possibility that the response seen in this study resulted from the patients' use of lithium or valproate rather than ketamine. This seems unlikely because the mean duration of therapeutic levels of mood stabilizers before receiving the first infusion was, on average, 7 weeks. In addition, most patients included in the study had previously failed to respond to trials of either or both of these medicines (Table 2). Next, our study findings could be explained by the notion that subjects cycled out of their major depressive episode. This is also unlikely given that only one subject included in the study met rapid cycling criteria. Furthermore, the use of the placebo phase should protect against findings due to random switching.

Consistent with all published studies using ketamine,30,33,34,49 we found transitory perceptual and dissociative disturbances in patients receiving ketamine that could have compromised the study blinding. Raters and patients were not asked to guess treatment assignment, which would have helped clarify the strength of the blinding. Although most ketamine patients experienced such changes, those changes were not associated with antidepressant response; furthermore, some patients who responded to ketamine had no substantial dissociative symptoms. However, limitations in maintaining the study blinding may have biased patient reporting by diminishing placebo effects, thereby potentially confounding the results. It is interesting to note that although none of the subjects taking placebo met the stringent 50% response criteria in the first week, they had an improvement of 16% at 40 minutes, 14% at 230 minutes, and 10% at day 3. In addition, 31% of patients had at least a 20% improvement at 230 minutes, and 1 had a 40% improvement on day 3. This implies that some clinical improvement occurred with placebo. Furthermore, at least 10% of patients receiving placebo experienced adverse events similar to those occurring with an active drug. While the clinical improvement and adverse events experienced by subjects receiving placebo does not mean that they could not discern placebo from the active drug, it does imply that they experienced changes consistent with having received an active drug. Nevertheless, future studies using ketamine will have to address the limitation of blinding and may include an active comparator with central nervous system effects.

Effective treatments for preventing mood episodes in patients with BPD are urgently needed. However, it is important to note that the purpose of this study was to determine the relevance of the NMDA receptor in initial and rapid onset of antidepressant response, not in preventing relapse. Taken together, the present results support the hypothesis that targeting the NMDA receptor complex brings about a rapid antidepressant effect in patients with bipolar depression. Future studies should examine strategies for long-term maintenance of ketamine's rapid antidepressant response.

Correspondence: Carlos A. Zarate Jr, MD, 10 Center Dr, Clinical Research Center, Unit 7 Southeast, Room 7-3445, Bethesda, MD 20892 (zaratec@mail.nih.gov).

Submitted for Publication: September 30, 2009; final revision received February 17, 2010; accepted February 17, 2010.

Author Contributions: Dr Zarate had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Financial Disclosure: Ioline Henter, MA, provided outstanding editorial assistance. A patent application for the use of ketamine in depression has been submitted listing Drs Zarate and Manji among the inventors; they have assigned their rights on the patent to the US government.

Funding/Support: Funding for this work was supported by the Intramural Research Program at the NIMH, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, and by a National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression Award (Dr Zarate).

Merikangas  KRAkiskal  HSAngst  JGreenberg  PEHirschfeld  RMPetukhova  MKessler  RC Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007;64 (5) 543- 552
PubMed Link to Article
Calabrese  JRHuffman  RFWhite  RLEdwards  SThompson  TRAscher  JAMonaghan  ETLeadbetter  RA Lamotrigine in the acute treatment of bipolar depression: results of five double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Bipolar Disord 2008;10 (2) 323- 333
PubMed Link to Article
Sachs  GSNierenberg  AACalabrese  JRMarangell  LBWisniewski  SRGyulai  LFriedman  ESBowden  CLFossey  MDOstacher  MJKetter  TAPatel  JHauser  PRapport  DMartinez  JMAllen  MHMiklowitz  DJOtto  MWDennehy  EBThase  ME Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression. N Engl J Med 2007;356 (17) 1711- 1722
PubMed Link to Article
Nierenberg  AAOstacher  MJCalabrese  JRKetter  TAMarangell  LBMiklowitz  DJMiyahara  SBauer  MSThase  MEWisniewski  SRSachs  GS Treatment-resistant bipolar depression: a STEP-BD equipoise randomized effectiveness trial of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine, inositol, or risperidone. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (2) 210- 216
PubMed Link to Article
Weisler  RHCalabrese  JRThase  MEArvekvist  RStening  GPaulsson  BSuppes  T Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy for the treatment of depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder: a post hoc analysis of combined results from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69 (5) 769- 782
PubMed Link to Article
Calabrese  JRKeck  PE  JrMacfadden  WMinkwitz  MKetter  TAWeisler  RHCutler  AJ McCoy  RWilson  EMullen  J A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine in the treatment of bipolar I or II depression. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162 (7) 1351- 1360
PubMed Link to Article
Thase  MEMacfadden  WWeisler  RHChang  WPaulsson  BKhan  ACalabrese  JRBOLDER II Study Group, Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar I and II depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the BOLDER II study). J Clin Psychopharmacol 2006;26 (6) 600- 609
PubMed Link to Article
Machado-Vieira  RSalvadore  GLuckenbaugh  DAManji  HKZarate  CA  Jr Rapid onset of antidepressant action: a new paradigm in the research and treatment of major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69 (6) 946- 958
PubMed Link to Article
Jick  HKaye  JAJick  SS Antidepressants and the risk of suicidal behaviors. JAMA 2004;292 (3) 338- 343
PubMed Link to Article
Nock  MKHwang  ISampson  NKessler  RCAngermeyer  MBeautrais  ABorges  GBromet  EBruffaerts  Rde Girolamo  Gde Graaf  RFlorescu  SGureje  OHaro  JMHu  CHuang  YKaram  EGKawakami  NKovess  VLevinson  DPosada-Villa  JSagar  RTomov  TViana  MCWilliams  DR Cross-national analysis of the associations among mental disorders and suicidal behavior: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med 2009;6 (8) e1000123
PubMed Link to Article
Martinowich  KSchloesser  RJManji  HK Bipolar disorder: from genes to behavior pathways. J Clin Invest 2009;119 (4) 726- 736
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CA  JrSingh  JManji  HK Cellular plasticity cascades: targets for the development of novel therapeutics for bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2006;59 (11) 1006- 1020
PubMed Link to Article
Law  AJDeakin  JF Asymmetrical reductions of hippocampal NMDAR1 glutamate receptor mRNA in the psychoses. Neuroreport 2001;12 (13) 2971- 2974
PubMed Link to Article
McCullumsmith  REKristiansen  LVBeneyto  MScarr  EDean  BMeador-Woodruff  JH Decreased NR1, NR2A, and SAP102 transcript expression in the hippocampus in bipolar disorder. Brain Res 2007;1127 (1) 108- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Woo  TUWalsh  JPBenes  FM Density of glutamic acid decarboxylase 67 messenger RNA-containing neurons that express the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor subunit NR2A in the anterior cingulate cortex in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61 (7) 649- 657
PubMed Link to Article
Martucci  LWong  AHDe Luca  VLikhodi  OWong  GWKing  NKennedy  JL N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor NR2B subunit gene GRIN2B in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: Polymorphisms and mRNA levels. Schizophr Res 2006;84 (2-3) 214- 221
PubMed Link to Article
Mundo  ETharmalingham  SNeves-Pereira  MDalton  EJMacciardi  FParikh  SVBolonna  AKerwin  RWArranz  MJMakoff  AJKennedy  JL Evidence that the N-methyl-D-aspartate subunit 1 receptor gene (GRIN1) confers susceptibility to bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry 2003;8 (2) 241- 245
PubMed Link to Article
Brennan  BPHudson  JIJensen  JE McCarthy  JRoberts  JLPrescot  APCohen  BMPope  HG  JrRenshaw  PFOngür  D Rapid enhancement of glutamatergic neurotransmission in bipolar depression following treatment with riluzole. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35 (3) 834- 846
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CA  JrQuiroz  JASingh  JBDenicoff  KDDe Jesus  GLuckenbaugh  DACharney  DSManji  HK An open-label trial of the glutamate-modulating agent riluzole in combination with lithium for the treatment of bipolar depression. Biol Psychiatry 2005;57 (4) 430- 432
PubMed Link to Article
Du  JSuzuki  KWei  YWang  YBlumenthal  RChen  ZFalke  CZarate  CA  JrManji  HK The anticonvulsants lamotrigine, riluzole, and valproate differentially regulate AMPA receptor membrane localization: relationship to clinical effects in mood disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 2007;32 (4) 793- 802
PubMed Link to Article
Layer  RTPopik  POlds  TSkolnick  P Antidepressant-like actions of the polyamine site NMDA antagonist, eliprodil (SL-82.0715). Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1995;52 (3) 621- 627
PubMed Link to Article
Meloni  DGambarana  CDe Montis  MGDal Pra  PTaddei  ITagliamonte  A Dizocilpine antagonizes the effect of chronic imipramine on learned helplessness in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1993;46 (2) 423- 426
PubMed Link to Article
Moryl  EDanysz  WQuack  G Potential antidepressive properties of amantadine, memantine and bifemelane. Pharmacol Toxicol 1993;72 (6) 394- 397
PubMed Link to Article
Papp  MMoryl  E Antidepressant activity of non-competitive and competitive NMDA receptor antagonists in a chronic mild stress model of depression. Eur J Pharmacol 1994;263 (1-2) 1- 7
PubMed Link to Article
Przegaliński  ETatarczynska  EDeren-Wesolek  AChojnacka-Wojcik  E Antidepressant-like effects of a partial agonist at strychnine-insensitive glycine receptors and a competitive NMDA receptor antagonist. Neuropharmacology 1997;36 (1) 31- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Trullas  RSkolnick  P Functional antagonists at the NMDA receptor complex exhibit antidepressant actions. Eur J Pharmacol 1990;185 (1) 1- 10
PubMed Link to Article
Krystal  JHSanacora  GBlumberg  HAnand  ACharney  DSMarek  GEpperson  CNGoddard  AMason  GF Glutamate and GABA systems as targets for novel antidepressant and mood-stabilizing treatments. Mol Psychiatry 2002;7(suppl 1)S71- S80
PubMed Link to Article
Sanacora  GZarate  CAKrystal  JHManji  HK Targeting the glutamatergic system to develop novel, improved therapeutics for mood disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7 (5) 426- 437
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CAQuiroz  JPayne  JManji  HK Modulators of the glutamatergic system: implications for the development of improved therapeutics in mood disorders. Psychopharmacol Bull 2002;36 (4) 35- 83
PubMed
Krystal  JHKarper  LPSeibyl  JPFreeman  GKDelaney  RBremner  JDHeninger  GRBowers  MB  JrCharney  DS Subanesthetic effects of the noncompetitive NMDAantagonist, ketamine, in humans: psychotomimetic, perceptual, cognitive, and neuroendocrine responses. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51 (3) 199- 214
PubMed Link to Article
First  MBSpitzer  RLGibbon  MWilliams  AR Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition (SCID-I/P).  New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research; 2001
Sackeim  HA The definition and meaning of treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62(suppl 16)10- 17
PubMed
Berman  RMCappiello  AAnand  AOren  DAHeninger  GRCharney  DSKrystal  JH Antidepressant effects of ketamine in depressed patients. Biol Psychiatry 2000;47 (4) 351- 354
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CA  JrSingh  JBCarlson  PJBrutsche  NEAmeli  RLuckenbaugh  DAChar ney  DSManji  HK A randomized trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist in treatment-resistant major depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63 (8) 856- 864
PubMed Link to Article
Hamilton  M A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960;2356- 62
PubMed Link to Article
Beck  ATBeamesderfer  A Assessment of depression: the depression inventory. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry 1974;7 (0) 151- 169
PubMed
Aitken  RC Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 1969;62 (10) 989- 993
PubMed
Hamilton  M The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 1959;32 (1) 50- 55
PubMed Link to Article
Overall  JEGorham  DR The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychol Rep 1962;10799- 812
Link to Article
Bremner  JDKrystal  JHPutnam  FWSouthwick  SMMarmar  CCharney  DSMazure  CM Measurement of dissociative states with the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS). J Trauma Stress 1998;11 (1) 125- 136
PubMed Link to Article
Young  RCBiggs  JTZiegler  VEMeyer  DA A rating scale for mania: reliability, validity and sensitivity. Br J Psychiatry 1978;133429- 435
PubMed Link to Article
White  PFSchuttler  JShafer  AStanski  DRHorai  YTrevor  AJ Comparative pharmacology of the ketamine isomers: studies in volunteers. Br J Anaesth 1985;57 (2) 197- 203
PubMed Link to Article
Moghaddam  BAdams  BVerma  ADaly  D Activation of glutamatergic neurotransmission by ketamine: a novel step in the pathway from NMDA receptor blockade to dopaminergic and cognitive disruptions associated with the prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 1997;17 (8) 2921- 2927
PubMed
Maeng  SZarate  CA  JrDu  JSchloesser  RJ McCammon  JChen  GManji  HK Cellular mechanisms underlying the antidepressant effects of ketamine: role of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazole-4-propionic acid receptors. Biol Psychiatry 2008;63 (4) 349- 352
PubMed Link to Article
Altamura  ACDell’Osso  BBuoli  MZanoni  SMundo  E Intravenous augmentative citalopram versus clomipramine in partial/nonresponder depressed patients: a short-term, low dose, randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2008;28 (4) 406- 410
PubMed Link to Article
Furey  MLDrevets  WC Antidepressant efficacy of the antimuscarinic drug scopolamine: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63 (10) 1121- 1129
PubMed Link to Article
Preskorn  SHBaker  BKolluri  SMenniti  FSKrams  MLanden  JW An innovative design to establish proof of concept of the antidepressant effects of the NR2B subunit selective N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, CP-101,606, in patients with treatment-refractory major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2008;28 (6) 631- 637
PubMed Link to Article
Szuba  MPAmsterdam  JDFernando  AT  IIIGary  KAWhybrow  PCWinokur  A Rapid antidepressant response after nocturnal TRH administration in patients with bipolar type I and bipolar type II major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2005;25 (4) 325- 330
PubMed Link to Article
Anand  ACharney  DSOren  DABerman  RMHu  XSCappiello  AKrystal  JH Attenuation of the neuropsychiatric effects of ketamine with lamotrigine: support for hyperglutamatergic effects of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000;57 (3) 270- 276
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Enrollment, randomization, withdrawals, and completion of the 2 treatment phases (n = 18).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Change in depression scale scores during 2 weeks in patients with bipolar disorder given placebo and ketamine (n = 18). Values are expressed as generalized least-square means and standard errors for the intent-to-treat analysis. BDI indicates Beck Depression Inventory; HAM-D, 17-item Hamilton Scale for Depression; MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale; *P < .001; †P < .01; and ‡P < .05.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Proportion of responders and remitters after ketamine or placebo infusion by Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. A, Proportion of responders (50% improvement on MADRS) from 40 minutes to day 14 postinfusion (n = 18). B, Proportion of remitters (MADRS score <10) from 40 minutes to day 14 postinfusion (n = 18).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 4.

Change in psychiatric scale scores in patients with bipolar disorder given placebo and ketamine (n = 18). Values are expressed as generalized least-square means and standard errors for the intent-to-treat analysis. BPRS indicates Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; CADSS, Clinician Administered Dissociative Scale; YMRS, Young Mania Rating Scale; *P < .05; †P < .01; and ‡P < .001.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Bipolar Disorder (n=18)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Medication Use During Current Major Depressive Episode and Patient's Lifetime (n=18)

References

Merikangas  KRAkiskal  HSAngst  JGreenberg  PEHirschfeld  RMPetukhova  MKessler  RC Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of bipolar spectrum disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007;64 (5) 543- 552
PubMed Link to Article
Calabrese  JRHuffman  RFWhite  RLEdwards  SThompson  TRAscher  JAMonaghan  ETLeadbetter  RA Lamotrigine in the acute treatment of bipolar depression: results of five double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Bipolar Disord 2008;10 (2) 323- 333
PubMed Link to Article
Sachs  GSNierenberg  AACalabrese  JRMarangell  LBWisniewski  SRGyulai  LFriedman  ESBowden  CLFossey  MDOstacher  MJKetter  TAPatel  JHauser  PRapport  DMartinez  JMAllen  MHMiklowitz  DJOtto  MWDennehy  EBThase  ME Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression. N Engl J Med 2007;356 (17) 1711- 1722
PubMed Link to Article
Nierenberg  AAOstacher  MJCalabrese  JRKetter  TAMarangell  LBMiklowitz  DJMiyahara  SBauer  MSThase  MEWisniewski  SRSachs  GS Treatment-resistant bipolar depression: a STEP-BD equipoise randomized effectiveness trial of antidepressant augmentation with lamotrigine, inositol, or risperidone. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163 (2) 210- 216
PubMed Link to Article
Weisler  RHCalabrese  JRThase  MEArvekvist  RStening  GPaulsson  BSuppes  T Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy for the treatment of depressive episodes in bipolar I disorder: a post hoc analysis of combined results from 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69 (5) 769- 782
PubMed Link to Article
Calabrese  JRKeck  PE  JrMacfadden  WMinkwitz  MKetter  TAWeisler  RHCutler  AJ McCoy  RWilson  EMullen  J A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of quetiapine in the treatment of bipolar I or II depression. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162 (7) 1351- 1360
PubMed Link to Article
Thase  MEMacfadden  WWeisler  RHChang  WPaulsson  BKhan  ACalabrese  JRBOLDER II Study Group, Efficacy of quetiapine monotherapy in bipolar I and II depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study (the BOLDER II study). J Clin Psychopharmacol 2006;26 (6) 600- 609
PubMed Link to Article
Machado-Vieira  RSalvadore  GLuckenbaugh  DAManji  HKZarate  CA  Jr Rapid onset of antidepressant action: a new paradigm in the research and treatment of major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2008;69 (6) 946- 958
PubMed Link to Article
Jick  HKaye  JAJick  SS Antidepressants and the risk of suicidal behaviors. JAMA 2004;292 (3) 338- 343
PubMed Link to Article
Nock  MKHwang  ISampson  NKessler  RCAngermeyer  MBeautrais  ABorges  GBromet  EBruffaerts  Rde Girolamo  Gde Graaf  RFlorescu  SGureje  OHaro  JMHu  CHuang  YKaram  EGKawakami  NKovess  VLevinson  DPosada-Villa  JSagar  RTomov  TViana  MCWilliams  DR Cross-national analysis of the associations among mental disorders and suicidal behavior: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med 2009;6 (8) e1000123
PubMed Link to Article
Martinowich  KSchloesser  RJManji  HK Bipolar disorder: from genes to behavior pathways. J Clin Invest 2009;119 (4) 726- 736
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CA  JrSingh  JManji  HK Cellular plasticity cascades: targets for the development of novel therapeutics for bipolar disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2006;59 (11) 1006- 1020
PubMed Link to Article
Law  AJDeakin  JF Asymmetrical reductions of hippocampal NMDAR1 glutamate receptor mRNA in the psychoses. Neuroreport 2001;12 (13) 2971- 2974
PubMed Link to Article
McCullumsmith  REKristiansen  LVBeneyto  MScarr  EDean  BMeador-Woodruff  JH Decreased NR1, NR2A, and SAP102 transcript expression in the hippocampus in bipolar disorder. Brain Res 2007;1127 (1) 108- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Woo  TUWalsh  JPBenes  FM Density of glutamic acid decarboxylase 67 messenger RNA-containing neurons that express the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor subunit NR2A in the anterior cingulate cortex in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2004;61 (7) 649- 657
PubMed Link to Article
Martucci  LWong  AHDe Luca  VLikhodi  OWong  GWKing  NKennedy  JL N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor NR2B subunit gene GRIN2B in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: Polymorphisms and mRNA levels. Schizophr Res 2006;84 (2-3) 214- 221
PubMed Link to Article
Mundo  ETharmalingham  SNeves-Pereira  MDalton  EJMacciardi  FParikh  SVBolonna  AKerwin  RWArranz  MJMakoff  AJKennedy  JL Evidence that the N-methyl-D-aspartate subunit 1 receptor gene (GRIN1) confers susceptibility to bipolar disorder. Mol Psychiatry 2003;8 (2) 241- 245
PubMed Link to Article
Brennan  BPHudson  JIJensen  JE McCarthy  JRoberts  JLPrescot  APCohen  BMPope  HG  JrRenshaw  PFOngür  D Rapid enhancement of glutamatergic neurotransmission in bipolar depression following treatment with riluzole. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35 (3) 834- 846
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CA  JrQuiroz  JASingh  JBDenicoff  KDDe Jesus  GLuckenbaugh  DACharney  DSManji  HK An open-label trial of the glutamate-modulating agent riluzole in combination with lithium for the treatment of bipolar depression. Biol Psychiatry 2005;57 (4) 430- 432
PubMed Link to Article
Du  JSuzuki  KWei  YWang  YBlumenthal  RChen  ZFalke  CZarate  CA  JrManji  HK The anticonvulsants lamotrigine, riluzole, and valproate differentially regulate AMPA receptor membrane localization: relationship to clinical effects in mood disorders. Neuropsychopharmacology 2007;32 (4) 793- 802
PubMed Link to Article
Layer  RTPopik  POlds  TSkolnick  P Antidepressant-like actions of the polyamine site NMDA antagonist, eliprodil (SL-82.0715). Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1995;52 (3) 621- 627
PubMed Link to Article
Meloni  DGambarana  CDe Montis  MGDal Pra  PTaddei  ITagliamonte  A Dizocilpine antagonizes the effect of chronic imipramine on learned helplessness in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1993;46 (2) 423- 426
PubMed Link to Article
Moryl  EDanysz  WQuack  G Potential antidepressive properties of amantadine, memantine and bifemelane. Pharmacol Toxicol 1993;72 (6) 394- 397
PubMed Link to Article
Papp  MMoryl  E Antidepressant activity of non-competitive and competitive NMDA receptor antagonists in a chronic mild stress model of depression. Eur J Pharmacol 1994;263 (1-2) 1- 7
PubMed Link to Article
Przegaliński  ETatarczynska  EDeren-Wesolek  AChojnacka-Wojcik  E Antidepressant-like effects of a partial agonist at strychnine-insensitive glycine receptors and a competitive NMDA receptor antagonist. Neuropharmacology 1997;36 (1) 31- 37
PubMed Link to Article
Trullas  RSkolnick  P Functional antagonists at the NMDA receptor complex exhibit antidepressant actions. Eur J Pharmacol 1990;185 (1) 1- 10
PubMed Link to Article
Krystal  JHSanacora  GBlumberg  HAnand  ACharney  DSMarek  GEpperson  CNGoddard  AMason  GF Glutamate and GABA systems as targets for novel antidepressant and mood-stabilizing treatments. Mol Psychiatry 2002;7(suppl 1)S71- S80
PubMed Link to Article
Sanacora  GZarate  CAKrystal  JHManji  HK Targeting the glutamatergic system to develop novel, improved therapeutics for mood disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7 (5) 426- 437
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CAQuiroz  JPayne  JManji  HK Modulators of the glutamatergic system: implications for the development of improved therapeutics in mood disorders. Psychopharmacol Bull 2002;36 (4) 35- 83
PubMed
Krystal  JHKarper  LPSeibyl  JPFreeman  GKDelaney  RBremner  JDHeninger  GRBowers  MB  JrCharney  DS Subanesthetic effects of the noncompetitive NMDAantagonist, ketamine, in humans: psychotomimetic, perceptual, cognitive, and neuroendocrine responses. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51 (3) 199- 214
PubMed Link to Article
First  MBSpitzer  RLGibbon  MWilliams  AR Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition (SCID-I/P).  New York, NY: New York State Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research; 2001
Sackeim  HA The definition and meaning of treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2001;62(suppl 16)10- 17
PubMed
Berman  RMCappiello  AAnand  AOren  DAHeninger  GRCharney  DSKrystal  JH Antidepressant effects of ketamine in depressed patients. Biol Psychiatry 2000;47 (4) 351- 354
PubMed Link to Article
Zarate  CA  JrSingh  JBCarlson  PJBrutsche  NEAmeli  RLuckenbaugh  DAChar ney  DSManji  HK A randomized trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist in treatment-resistant major depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63 (8) 856- 864
PubMed Link to Article
Hamilton  M A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960;2356- 62
PubMed Link to Article
Beck  ATBeamesderfer  A Assessment of depression: the depression inventory. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry 1974;7 (0) 151- 169
PubMed
Aitken  RC Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 1969;62 (10) 989- 993
PubMed
Hamilton  M The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol 1959;32 (1) 50- 55
PubMed Link to Article
Overall  JEGorham  DR The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychol Rep 1962;10799- 812
Link to Article
Bremner  JDKrystal  JHPutnam  FWSouthwick  SMMarmar  CCharney  DSMazure  CM Measurement of dissociative states with the Clinician-Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS). J Trauma Stress 1998;11 (1) 125- 136
PubMed Link to Article
Young  RCBiggs  JTZiegler  VEMeyer  DA A rating scale for mania: reliability, validity and sensitivity. Br J Psychiatry 1978;133429- 435
PubMed Link to Article
White  PFSchuttler  JShafer  AStanski  DRHorai  YTrevor  AJ Comparative pharmacology of the ketamine isomers: studies in volunteers. Br J Anaesth 1985;57 (2) 197- 203
PubMed Link to Article
Moghaddam  BAdams  BVerma  ADaly  D Activation of glutamatergic neurotransmission by ketamine: a novel step in the pathway from NMDA receptor blockade to dopaminergic and cognitive disruptions associated with the prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci 1997;17 (8) 2921- 2927
PubMed
Maeng  SZarate  CA  JrDu  JSchloesser  RJ McCammon  JChen  GManji  HK Cellular mechanisms underlying the antidepressant effects of ketamine: role of alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methylisoxazole-4-propionic acid receptors. Biol Psychiatry 2008;63 (4) 349- 352
PubMed Link to Article
Altamura  ACDell’Osso  BBuoli  MZanoni  SMundo  E Intravenous augmentative citalopram versus clomipramine in partial/nonresponder depressed patients: a short-term, low dose, randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2008;28 (4) 406- 410
PubMed Link to Article
Furey  MLDrevets  WC Antidepressant efficacy of the antimuscarinic drug scopolamine: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63 (10) 1121- 1129
PubMed Link to Article
Preskorn  SHBaker  BKolluri  SMenniti  FSKrams  MLanden  JW An innovative design to establish proof of concept of the antidepressant effects of the NR2B subunit selective N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, CP-101,606, in patients with treatment-refractory major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2008;28 (6) 631- 637
PubMed Link to Article
Szuba  MPAmsterdam  JDFernando  AT  IIIGary  KAWhybrow  PCWinokur  A Rapid antidepressant response after nocturnal TRH administration in patients with bipolar type I and bipolar type II major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2005;25 (4) 325- 330
PubMed Link to Article
Anand  ACharney  DSOren  DABerman  RMHu  XSCappiello  AKrystal  JH Attenuation of the neuropsychiatric effects of ketamine with lamotrigine: support for hyperglutamatergic effects of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000;57 (3) 270- 276
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment
Might Ketamine Itself be the Answer?
Posted on September 20, 2010
Scott A. Irwin, MD, PhD
The Institute for Palliative Medicine at San Diego Hospice
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
I have been excited and inspired by the works of Dr. Zarate and others investigating ketamine as a rapid treatment for depression. This work highlights the need for better and more rapid depression treatments, as well as for further investigations into the role of glutamate in depressive syndromes. I would like to address two conclusions that are surfacing from this work. The first is that drug companies need to pursue new agents targeting this mechanism, and the second is the need for and feasibility of using the intravenous route. I wonder if either of those is necessary.
Ketamine at this dosing level has evidence for the successful treatment of cancer and post-operative pain with few side effects,(1-5) even when given via the oral,(6,7) sublingual,(8) or intranasal routes.(9) In fact, I wonder if first pass metabolism to norketamine improves efficacy, as norketamine is believed to be equipotent to ketamine as an analgesic and has a longer half-life.
Recently, we published two cases of depression rapidly treated with oral ketamine, with no adverse reactions and good effect for anxiety as well.(10)
So, might ketamine already be our answer? It is cheap, available, can be administered by many routes, and has increasing evidence of effectiveness with few side effects.
REFERENCES:
1. Subramaniam K, Subramaniam B, Steinbrook RA. Ketamine as adjuvant analgesic to opioids: a quantitative and qualitative systematic review. Anesth Analg. Aug 2004;99(2):482-495, table of contents.
2. Lossignol DA, Obiols-Portis M, Body JJ. Successful use of ketamine for intractable cancer pain. Support Care Cancer. Mar 2005;13(3):188-193.
3. Fitzgibbon EJ, Hall P, Schroder C, Seely J, Viola R. Low dose ketamine as an analgesic adjuvant in difficult pain syndromes: a strategy for conversion from parenteral to oral ketamine. J Pain Symptom Manage. Feb 2002;23(2):165-170.
4. Fine PG. Low-dose ketamine in the management of opioid nonresponsive terminal cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. Apr 1999;17(4):296-300.
5. Clark JL, Kalan GE. Effective treatment of severe cancer pain of the head using low-dose ketamine in an opioid-tolerant patient. J Pain Symptom Manage. May 1995;10(4):310-314.
6. Kannan TR, Saxena A, Bhatnagar S, Barry A. Oral ketamine as an adjuvant to oral morphine for neuropathic pain in cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. Jan 2002;23(1):60-65.
7. Lauretti GR, Lima IC, Reis MP, Prado WA, Pereira NL. Oral ketamine and transdermal nitroglycerin as analgesic adjuvants to oral morphine therapy for cancer pain management. Anesthesiology. Jun 1999;90(6):1528-1533.
8. Mercadante S, Arcuri E, Ferrera P, Villari P, Mangione S. Alternative treatments of breakthrough pain in patients receiving spinal analgesics for cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manage. Nov 2005;30(5):485-491.
9. Carr DB, Goudas LC, Denman WT, et al. Safety and efficacy of intranasal ketamine for the treatment of breakthrough pain in patients with chronic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Pain. Mar 2004;108(1-2):17-27.
10. Irwin SA, Iglewicz A. Oral ketamine for the rapid treatment of depression and anxiety in patients receiving hospice care. J Palliat Med. Jul;13(7):903-908.

Conflict of Interest: Career Development Support provided by the National Palliative Care Research Center; no other potential conflicts or relevant financial interests.
Cost Effectiveness of IV Ketamine for Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression
Posted on October 19, 2010
Jon E Berner, MD, PhD
Woodinville Psychiatric Assoc.
Conflict of Interest: None Declared
Dear Sir, The NIMH Mood Disorders group recently reported in the August issue successful extension of their IV ketamine treatment protocol from initial work with unipolar depression to bipolar depression.1 They note in the discussion section limitations related to a small sample size, limited generalizability due to narrow inclusion criteria, and absent data regarding maintenance dosing protocols. Our experience with ketamine in a fee-for-service community setting directly addresses the concerns raised in the discussion section but also raises questions about reliance on an IV route of administration.
Cost matters. The IV route is much more expensive than the self administered oral2 or intranasal route3 commonly used in chronic pain settings. Intranasal ketamine is inexpensive; a two week supply is currently $84.00 for 300# 10 mg. doses at the local compounding pharmacy. In contrast, the cost for the IV setup is $150-$250 in community clinics presumably dosed every 3-7 days. Given relative minimal economic barriers to self-administered use, it is possible to gather useful clinical experience in the community with the drug in short periods of time, in contrast to the 2.5 year recruitment period for 18 patients in the NIMH trials. A retrospective review of IN ketamine trials, largely in refractory pain patients in our clinic during a nine month period from 2007 to 2008, reveals the complementary data requested by the discussion section: a large sample size (59/110 patients with a bipolar diagnosis), extensive comorbity (average number of psychotropic medications 2.8), and an average maintenance intranasal dose (217 mg). Probability of refill of the initial prescription after a 30 day trial (64%), suggests potential equivalent efficacy to the IV route (54%).
Dose matters. IV dosing, with the locus of control fixed with the physician, inherently degrades the patient incentives to maximize efficacy. The variance in self-administered maintenance IN dosing (118 mg.) relative to mean (217 mg.) confirms a clinical experience, that optimal maintenance dosing requires titration. Some patients, given control of their dosing, can learn to tolerate mild perceptual distortions or dizziness.
Cost-effectiveness of clinical treatment has important implications for understanding the link between addiction and NMDA activity. Clinical concern has typically focused on possible addiction to self-administered ketamine despite a very low prevalence relative to worldwide access4 and prominent elements of pseudo-addiction rather than euphoria in self-reports of dependent individuals.5,6 This focus tends to overshadow the observed strong link between a family history of alcohol dependence and ketamine responsiveness as observed in the structured trials at NIMH.7 Given the highly polygenetic nature of alcohol dependence, a statistical argument could be made for a follow-up community research strategy based on large numbers of patients and a broad variance in the scientific paradigms of interested investigators. The nasal and oral forms of ketamine, cheaper and more finely titrated, may advance addiction research and treatment more quickly.
Jon Berner, MD, PhD
References
1. Diazgranados N, Ibrahim L, Brutsche N, Newberg A, Kronstein P, Khalife S, Kammerer W, Quezado Z, Luckkenbaugh D, Salvadore G, Machado-Vieira R, Manji H, Zarate C. A randomized add-on trial on an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist in treatment-resistant bipolar depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010; 67(8):793-802.
2. Cvrèek P. Side effects of ketamine in the long-term treatment of neuropathic pain. Pain Med. 2008 Mar; 9(2):253-7.
3. Huge V, Lauchart M, Magerl W, Schelling G, Beyer A, Thieme D, Azad S. Effects of low-dose intranasal (S)-ketamine in patients with neuropathic pain. Eur J Pain. 2010 Apr;14(4):387-94. Epub 2009 Sep 3.
4. Degenhardt L, Dunn M. The epidemiology of GHB and ketamine use in an Australian household survey. Int J Drug Policy. 2008 Aug;19(4):311-6. Epub 2007 Oct 24.
5. Reynaud-Maurupt C, Bello P, Akoka S, Toufik A. Characteristics and behaviors of ketamine users in France in 2003. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2007 Mar;39(1):1-11.
6. Brunk D. Communication difficulties cited by users of ketamine. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2008; 3:42.
7. Phelps L, Butsche N, Moral J, Luckenbaugh D, Manj H, Zarate Jr C. Family history of alcohol dependence and initial antidepressant response to a N-methyl-D-aspartate. Biol Psychiatry. 2009 Jan 15;65(2):181-4. Epub 2008 Nov 8.

Conflict of Interest: None declared
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

A Randomized Add-on Trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate Antagonist in Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Depression
Arch Gen Psychiatry.2010;67(8):793-802.eSupplement

eSupplement -Download PDF (193 KB). This file requires Adobe Reader®.
eAppendix. Ketamine and Nor-ketamine assay.
eTable. Report of Adverse Effects.
eFigure. Change in HAM-A scores over two weeks (n=18). Values are expressed asgeneralized least square means and standard errors for the Intent to Treat (ITT) analysis.
Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 191

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles