Trial of Ketamine Masked by Surgical Anesthesia in Depressed Patients

Theresa R. Lii, Ashleigh E. Smith, Josephine R. Flohr, Robin L. Okada, Cynthia A. Nyongesa, Lisa J. Cianfichi, Laura M. Hack, Alan F. Schatzberg, Boris D. Heifets
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.28.23289210

Abstract

BACKGROUND Ketamine may have antidepressant properties, but its acute psychoactive effects complicate successful masking in placebo-controlled trials.

METHODS In a triple-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 40 adult patients with major depressive disorder were randomized to a single infusion of ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) during anesthesia for routine surgery. The primary outcome was depression severity measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at 1, 2, and 3 days post-infusion. The secondary outcome was the proportion of participants with clinical response (≥50% reduction in MADRS scores) at 1, 2, and 3 days post-infusion. After all follow-up visits, participants were asked to guess which intervention they received.

RESULTS Mean MADRS scores did not differ between groups at screening or pre-infusion baseline. The mixed-effects model showed no evidence of effect of group assignment on post-infusion MADRS scores at 1 to 3 days post-infusion (-5.82, 95% CI -13.3 to 1.64, p=0.13). Clinical response rates were similar between groups (60% versus 50% on day 1) and comparable to previous studies of ketamine in depressed populations. Secondary and exploratory outcomes found no evidence of benefit for ketamine. 36.8% of participants guessed their treatment assignment correctly; both groups allocated their guesses in similar proportions.

CONCLUSION A single dose of intravenous ketamine compared to placebo has no short-term effect on the severity of depression symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder. This trial successfully masked treatment allocation in moderate-to-severely depressed patients using surgical anesthesia. While it is impractical to use surgical anesthesia for most placebo-controlled trials, future studies of novel antidepressants with acute psychoactive effects should make efforts to fully mask treatment assignment in order to minimize subject-expectancy bias. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03861988)

INTRODUCTION

Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic with multiple molecular targets1, 2, is associated with rapid-acting antidepressant effects in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), including those with treatment-resistant depression (TRD)3–5. Across studies, an intravenous infusion of 0.5 mg/kg ketamine produces a clinical response in 41% and remission in 19% of patients with TRD at 24 hours6. Therapeutic effects appear within 2 hours of a single ketamine infusion5.

In most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ketamine for depression, participant masking has been nearly impossible given the drug’s obvious acute psychological effects. Inadequate masking presents a major confound to interpreting studies of ketamine, as well as other rapid-acting psychoactive therapeutics such as psilocybin and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)7–10, to the extent that most investigations do not report on the success of participant masking10. Incomplete masking may lead to subject-expectancy bias, which occurs when a research subject has an expectation for a given result that influences the reported outcome. Subject-expectancy bias may contribute to overestimation of treatment effect sizes in antidepressant trials involving ketamine11.

We utilized ketamine’s established safety in surgical settings by conducting a randomized placebo-controlled trial in which the administration of ketamine was masked by other surgical anesthetics. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether ketamine, given at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg over 40 minutes during surgical anesthesia, produces a greater antidepressant effect than placebo. We recruited patients with depression severity comparable to previous studies and analyzed similar follow-up time points. We hypothesized that ketamine is superior to an inert placebo (0.9% sodium chloride, i.e., normal saline) in reducing depression symptoms within the first 3 days post-infusion in a population of adults with moderate-to-severe levels of MDD.

Methods

TRIAL OVERSIGHT

This was an investigator-initiated, university-sponsored trial. The trial protocol was approved by the institutional review board at Stanford University and all participants gave written informed consent. Randomization and drug compounding were handled by Stanford Health Care Investigational Drug Service. The first and last authors designed the trial. The first author analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. The second through sixth performed the trial and collected the data. The penultimate author provided content expertise and advised trial design. The overall trial was overseen by the last author. The authors vouch for the accuracy and completeness of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol. There was no industry involvement in the collection or analysis of the data, and no agreements were in place between the authors and any commercial entity.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults undergoing elective non-cardiac, non-intracranial surgery were recruited from preoperative clinics at Stanford University Medical Center. The 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) was distributed to patients through a perioperative mental health screening service. To be eligible for the study, patients must score ≥ 10 on the PHQ-8, corresponding with at least moderate depression12. Research staff screened electronic health records (EHR) of patients scheduled for surgery who scored ≥ 10 points on the PHQ-8; those without exclusion criteria documented in the EHR were introduced to the study and consented for an additional screening visit. Surgical clinics also referred patients with symptomatic depression who expressed interest in the trial. These patients were contacted by research staff for a telephone pre-screen, and qualifying patients were consented for an additional screening visit. At this visit, research staff collected information on demographics, medical, and psychiatric history, including level of antidepressant treatment resistance assessed by the Maudsley Staging Method (MSM)13. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed via a hybrid approach of corroborating EHR data with patient self-report.

Inclusion criteria included English literacy, body mass index of 17-40 kg/m2, a diagnosis of MDD (single or recurrent) and a major depressive episode of ≥ 4 weeks duration prior to screening. The diagnosis of MDD was confirmed by the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview Module A14. Participants must also have had a combined score of ≥ 31 from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale15 (MADRS) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale16 (HADS). These scales were administered in-person, or by secure video conference or telephone, which have been validated for the PHQ17, HADS18, and MADRS19, 20.

Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, breastfeeding, moderate or severe substance use disorder, history of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, dementia or other amnestic cognitive disorder, history of surgery involving the brain or meninges, encephalitis, meningitis, or degenerative central nervous system disorder, clinically significant thyroid dysfunction within the past 6 months, and chronic use of ≥ 90 morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day. Patients at high risk of suicidal behavior on the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale21 were also excluded. Concurrent psychotherapy and antidepressant therapy were allowed if therapy was stable for ≥ 4 weeks prior to screening.

TRIAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

This was a triple-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Twenty participants were allocated to a single dose of intravenous ketamine (0.5 mg/kg diluted into 40 ml of normal saline, infused over 40 minutes using a programmable pump). Another twenty participants were allocated to 40 ml of normal saline infused similarly over 40 minutes. Pharmacy staff randomized participants using computerized block randomization with 5 blocks of 8. The participant, investigators, and direct care providers (e.g., anesthesiologists) were masked. Unmasking occurred after all 40 participants progressed through all follow-up timepoints.

Processed electroencephalography (EEG) from a SedLine® device (Masimo Corporation, Irvine, California, USA) was used to confirm anesthetic depth, measured by the device’s Patient State Index (PSI). To ensure participant masking, the infusion was initiated after anesthetic induction and surgical incision, during maintenance anesthesia (PSI of 25 to 50, consistent with the manufacturer recommendations for general anesthesia). The study drug was provided to the anesthesiologist in an unlabeled syringe.

Anesthesiologists, masked to patient group allocation, administered routine anesthesia tailored to the surgical procedure and patient comorbidities; they were asked to avoid altering the anesthetic in response to any perceived changes to the processed EEG during the study drug infusion (excepting excessively high PSI values indicating the patient was at risk of intraoperative awareness). Anesthesiologists were asked to minimize use of nitrous oxide (N2O), which has reported antidepressant effects22. Agents used for anesthetic maintenance included intravenous propofol and inhaled sevoflurane or isoflurane. A standard multimodal analgesic regimen was used, consisting of intravenous opioid and acetaminophen, with or without intravenous lidocaine.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the MADRS score measured 1, 2, and 3 days post-infusion, as previous studies have found the greatest antidepressant effect occurs within the first 72 hours of a single ketamine infusion23. The same sample was assessed at 1, 2 and 3 days post-infusion, as participant dropout only occurred after outcomes were assessed on day 3. Additional assessments were made 5, 7, and 14 days post-infusion and used for exploratory analyses. The MADRS is a clinical rating scale used widely in antidepressant trials; it consists of 10 items which measure the severity of depression in individuals, with a total score ranging from 0 to 60, and higher scores indicating more severe depression15. Trained clinical research personnel administered the MADRS.

The secondary outcome was clinical response, defined as ≥50% reduction in MADRS scores from screening baseline24. Remission, defined as MADRS score ≤12 in our study25, was treated as an exploratory outcome. Other exploratory outcomes included the HADS score, postoperative pain intensity and cumulative opioid use. The HADS is a self-reported questionnaire used to assess the severity of anxiety and depression in hospital patients; it consists of 14 items (7 items measuring anxiety, 7 items measuring depression) with a total score ranging from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms16. Postoperative pain was assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form modified for postoperative use (BPI-SF)26, 27. The BPI-SF measures severity of pain and its impact on daily functioning; it consists of 9 items, each using a numeric rating scale from 0-10. Inpatient postoperative opioid use, calculated as total daily MME28, was abstracted from the EHR for each day of hospitalization. Outpatient postoperative opioid use, via pill counts, was obtained during remote assessments. At 14 days post-infusion, participants were asked to guess their treatment arm. Outcomes were assessed in person during postoperative hospitalization, and by video or telephone after discharge.

STATISTICAL METHODS

Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed for the primary outcome. A mixed-effects model for repeated measures was the analysis strategy pre-registered before data unmasking to evaluate the antidepressant superiority of ketamine to placebo on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. The following fixed effects were included in the model: group, time in days, and the interaction between group and time. We included random effects for intercepts and slopes to account for variation in MADRS scores and differential treatment effects. An alternative, non-prespecified mixed-effects model using change from pre-infusion baseline scores on the day of surgery was also used to analyze the primary outcome. An unstructured covariance matrix was used in all mixed models described in this study. We also calculated Cohen’s kappa statistic, in a post-hoc analysis, to assess the level of agreement between groups regarding their guesses on treatment allocation. All analyses were performed using RStudio software (version 2022.07.1 for MacOS). The lme4 package was used for mixed-effects modeling.

Our sample size estimation was derived from an a priori power analysis for the primary outcome. In a randomized controlled trial of ketamine versus active placebo performed by Phillips et al., participants had a mean decrease of 10.9 points (standard deviation [SD] 8.9) in MADRS total score relative to pre-infusion scores compared with a mean decrease of 2.8 points (SD 3.6) with midazolam29. For reference, the minimum clinically important difference on the MADRS is estimated to range from 3 to 9 points30. Using these results, we computed an estimated total sample size of 38 participants at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power to detect this difference if using parametric testing. An additional 2 participants were added to account for potential attrition, for a total of 40 participants. Interim analyses were not performed.

Results

PARTICIPANTS

Participant recruitment occurred between February 2020 and August 2022. For participant flow through the clinical trial, see the CONSORT diagram (Figure 1). The screening visit occurred between 27 days and 16 hours prior to surgery (mean (SD) 5.1 (4.6) days). The mean age of trial participants was 51 years; they were mostly female (70%), white (65%), non-Hispanic (87.5%), employed (62.5%), and never smoked (65%). At screening, both groups had moderate levels of depression (ketamine: mean MADRS score = 27.7, placebo: 30.6) and moderate levels of treatment resistance13 (ketamine: mean MSM score = 8.3, placebo: 7.5). The presence of symptomatic depression was also supported by the HADS (ketamine: mean score = 24.6, placebo = 24.7). Although current MDD episode durations were longer in ketamine group, the difference did not reach significance (ketamine: median = 38 months, placebo: 17). Both groups also scored similarly on the BPI-SF at screening, except for two questions in which participants in the ketamine group reported having more pain interference with sleep (mean 7.7 versus 5.5, p=0.02) and enjoyment of life (7.6 versus 5.7, p=0.04). Other characteristics were similar between groups (Table 1).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. CONSORT Flow Diagram

CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. PI, principal investigator. ITT intention-to-treat. Participants were randomized to a single intravenous dose of either ketamine or saline, given during surgical anesthesia. *The severe adverse event refers to an unexpected death that occurred 2 days after the patient was discharged home without complications on postoperative day 3; this patient experienced a witnessed cardiac arrest, attributed to the participant’s medical factors and not resulting from study procedures. †One participant was withdrawn by the PI due to an unanticipated surgical revision of an implanted device, which took place on postoperative day 3 after study assessments were completed.

View this table:
Table 1. Demographics and Clinical Characteristics of the Participants at Baseline

Table 2 summarizes participants’ surgical and anesthetic characteristics. Participants in both study arms had similar levels of disease burden, as measured by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification31, as well as the Charlson Comorbidity Index32. Patients presented to a range of surgical departments which were distributed similarly between the two groups. With regards to anesthetic type, all except one underwent general anesthesia. One participant in the ketamine group had monitored anesthesia care with a neuraxial block; however, the depth of anesthesia was within study parameters. Two participants in the ketamine arm and one participant in the placebo arm received N2O at a concentration of ≥ 50% for ≥1 hour. Use of preoperative and intraoperative opioids and length of surgery were similar between groups.

View this table:
Table 2. Surgical and Anesthetic Characteristics of the Participants*

OUTCOMES

For the primary outcome on post-infusion days 1, 2, and 3, the mixed-effects model (Table 3) showed no evidence of effect of group assignment on MADRS scores (95% CI -13.3 to 1.64, p=0.13). The MADRS rate of change also did not differ between groups (95% CI -1.54 to 4.93, p=0.30). An alternative model using change from pre-infusion baseline MADRS scores on the day of surgery (“day 0”) also showed no between-groups difference in change scores (95% CI - 6.25 to 7.89, p=0.82). The rate of change for the MADRS change scores also did not differ between groups (95% CI -1.96 to 4.62, p=0.43). Missing MADRS scores among enrolled participants did not exceed 5% at any visit; therefore, missing data were not imputed for the primary outcome.

View this table:
Table 3

. Linear Mixed Model Estimates for MADRS Scores

Pre-infusion baseline MADRS scores on day 0 did not differ between trial groups (ketamine: 25.1 [SD 8.3]; placebo: 29.9 [SD 7.0]). From day 0 to day 1, the average change in MADRS scores was -12.4 points (SD 9.2) in the ketamine group and -14.7 points (SD 9.0) in the placebo group, corresponding to a mean decrease of 46% and 48% on the MADRS, respectively. In both groups, MADRS scores increased slightly on day 2 relative to the nadir at day 1, but the decrease from baseline persisted through all follow-up time points up to day 14 (Figure 2A). The HADS scores also followed a trajectory similar to the MADRS scores (Extended Data Table 4).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Depression Severity, Masking Assessment and Other Outcomes

Panel A shows the mean and standard deviation (SD) scores by group on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS; scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater depression); the screening baseline visit occurred on average 5 days before infusion on day 0. Panel B shows the distribution of guesses (as a percentage of each group; n=19 per group) made by participants when asked to guess which treatment they received after the last follow-up visit. Panel C shows the difference in MADRS scores relative to pre-infusion baseline scores obtained on day 0. Panels D shows the proportions of clinical response, respectively (as a percentage of each group; n=20 per group), within the first 3 days. Panel E shows the cumulative opioid consumption in MME by group, represented as median and interquartile range; both inpatient and outpatient opioids were included in the total.

View this table:
Table 4.

Depression Outcomes

At the end of the follow-up period, participants were asked to guess which intervention they had received; 36.8% of all participants guessed correctly, and the distribution of guesses between groups was comparable, with Cohen’s kappa = 0.33, indicating fair agreement between groups (Figure 2B).

MADRS change scores relative to day 0 are visualized in Figure 2C. Our secondary outcome was clinical response, defined as ≥50% reduction in MADRS scores from screening baseline. On post-infusion day 1, 60% and 50% of participants in the ketamine and placebo group, respectively, met criteria for clinical response. Rates of clinical response in both trial groups remained similar to each other on post-infusion days 2 and 3 (Figure 2D, Table 4). We also analyzed remission, which we defined in our study as MADRS score of ≤12. Remission occurred in 50% and 35% of participants in the ketamine and placebo group, respectively, on post-infusion day 1; this difference closed on post-infusion day 3, when 40% of both groups remained in remission (Table 4).

Cumulative opioid consumption did not differ between groups (Figure 2E). Of note, no participants received either preoperative or postoperative methadone or buprenorphine, nor were any maintained on opioid antagonist therapy. Average pain intensity on the BPI-SF at 14 days post-infusion was not different between groups (ketamine: 4.8 [SD 1.5]; placebo: 3.7 [SD 2.0]). Pain interference on the BPI-SF at day 14 post-infusion also did not differ between groups (ketamine: 6.2 [SD 2.2]; placebo: 5.7 [SD 3.5] ). Hospital length of stay was longer in the placebo group (mean 1.9 [SD 1.7] days versus 4.0 [SD 3.3] days, p=0.02).

PROTOCOL VIOLATIONS AND SAFETY

One participant in the ketamine group initially met inclusion criteria at screening but was retrospectively found not to have maintained her symptom severity on the morning of surgery (additive MADRS and HADS score of 30, below the minimum of 31). This participant was randomized and included in the ITT analysis. No protocol deviations related to the administration of the study drug occurred in this trial.

Adverse events were evaluated at every visit. Notably, one death in the ketamine group occurred 5 days post-infusion, which triggered the unmasking of treatment assignment. The patient had been discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 3, with no surgical or anesthetic complications documented prior to discharge. Subsequently, the patient experienced a witnessed cardiac arrest at home; advanced cardiac life support was initiated by paramedics and continued in the emergency room until the patient expired.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES

We tested whether our results were sensitive to: 1) a possible difference in pre-infusion baseline MADRS scores, and 2) the exclusion of participants who received nitrous oxide, an anesthetic which may also have antidepressant qualities22. We adjusted for a possible difference in pre-infusion baseline MADRS scores by including it as a fixed covariate and specifying random effects only for slopes in our mixed-effects model; this showed no between-group difference in MADRS scores (95% CI -8.41 to 4.49). When we applied our original mixed-effects model for the primary outcome after excluding 3 participants who received nitrous oxide at a concentration of 50% for at least 1 hour, there was also no between-group difference in MADRS scores (95% CI -13.3 to 2.74, p=0.13).

Discussion

This randomized, triple-masked trial compared the short-term antidepressant efficacy of ketamine with placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe depression. There was no effect of treatment on our primary outcome, MADRS scores on days 1, 2, and 3 post-infusion. Baseline MADRS scores obtained at screening and on the day of surgery did not meaningfully differ between groups, supporting the effectiveness of randomization. In both trial groups, the observed decrease in MADRS score at day 1 was similar to, or exceeded, the decreases observed in previous ketamine trials in awake patients29, 33–35. The variance in MADRS change scores observed in our study is also comparable to previous studies in awake patients19, supporting our a priori power calculation to detect a between-group difference. The HADS, an alternative patient-rated depression scale, yielded a similar score trajectory as the MADRS and strengthens our conclusion that ketamine and placebo did not differentially impact mood in this trial. Participant retention was excellent, with no loss to follow-up occurring within the primary outcome window. Notably, one participant death occurred in the ketamine group. However, this severe adverse event was attributed to underlying cardiovascular comorbidities rather than a direct result of trial procedures, consistent with previous analyses of cardiovascular safety outcomes after intravenous ketamine infusion36.

Remarkably, rates of clinical response and remission were similarly high in both groups and on par with respective rates reported in a recent meta-analysis6. The surprisingly robust clinical response and remission rate observed in both arms of this trial raises the question of whether anesthetics besides ketamine may have antidepressant effects. N2O has been shown to improve depression symptoms in patients with TRD22, 37. However, only 3/40 participants in our study were exposed to N2O at a concentration of 50% for ≥ 1 hour, making it unlikely to impact depression scores at the group level, as confirmed in our sensitivity analyses. Propofol infusions and inhaled isoflurane have also shown antidepressant properties when given at doses that suppress EEG activity (“burst suppression”) for 15 minutes, over multiple administrations38, 39, which differs substantially in depth and timing from standard surgical anesthesia used in our study (the recommended PSI range of 25-50 avoids burst suppression). Opioids are also routinely used during surgical anesthesia, and recent evidence shows that blocking opioid receptors attenuates the antidepressant effect of ketamine40, 41. No patients were on opioid antagonist or partial agonist therapy, and the average daily MME use in both groups prior to surgery was relatively low. While it is possible that opioid exposure interferes with the antidepressant effect of ketamine, we would expect smaller than usual effects across groups; we saw effect sizes equivalent to prior reports of non-surgical patients receiving ketamine.

Baseline heterogeneity in psychiatric characteristics could potentially explain the smaller-than-anticipated difference in post-treatment depression scores. Although clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were largely similar between trial groups, there was a notable difference in current MDD episode length—with the ketamine group having a longer median episode duration (38 months) compared to the placebo group (17 months). A longer current MDD episode may predict more treatment resistance to traditional antidepressants42. However, studies comparing characteristics of responders and non-responders to ketamine therapy have been mixed, with some studies showing that current MDD episode length impacts treatment response43 while other studies do not44, 45. We also cannot rule out the effect of surgical heterogeneity between groups, which we did not control for in our recruitment design; however, between-group differences in case counts did not exceed 3 for any surgical department, and intraoperative factors, including length of surgery and types of anesthetic used, did not meaningfully differ between groups.

Other studies have also evaluated the effect of ketamine on mood ratings in surgical patients46; however, numerous methodological limitations prevent direct comparison to studies of intravenous ketamine for depression in the psychiatric literature. Frequently, these trials were not conducted in a population likely to meet criteria for moderate-to-severe MDD47–51. In the Prevention of Delirium and Complications Associated with Surgical Treatments (PODCAST) study—the largest study to date comparing ketamine with saline in surgical patients—depression scores were analyzed as a secondary outcome from a study designed to evaluate the efficacy of ketamine for postoperative delirium in patients >60 years old. Notably, only 9.6% of participants met the PHQ-8 cutoff for moderate depression preoperatively, and no diagnostic data or clinician-rated scales were reported51. Kudoh et al. and Liu et al. enrolled surgical patients with mild to moderate depression severity 52, 53. A 2021 RCT testing ketamine during surgical anesthesia required moderate-to-severe depression (MADRS ≥ 22) for eligibility; however, these participants underwent intracranial tumor resection54, a population we excluded due to the possibility of mood and personality changes associated with cortical lesions and resections of such lesions55, 56.

A key strength of our trial was the evaluation of participant masking. At their last follow-up visit, patients in both groups allocated their guesses in similar proportions and fewer than half guessed correctly. The intervention was effectively masked—an uncommon finding among antidepressant trials with ketamine. Assessment of masking is also rare among RCTs involving ketamine and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), an important antidepressant treatment delivered to briefly anesthetized patients. Most RCTs evaluating the effect of adjunctive ketamine on ECT outcomes have found no benefit of ketamine given at doses of 0.5 mg/kg or greater57. Of the RCTs reviewed by McGirr et al., only one reported on masking effectiveness58.

Outcome expectancy related to the stated intent of the trial may drive apparent treatment effects. Previous studies of ketamine in surgical patients generally find that when patients are recruited to test ketamine’s antidepressant effect as a primary outcome, depression scores decrease postoperatively. Conversely, patients in the PODCAST study, who were recruited to participate in a trial focused on reducing postoperative delirium, depression symptoms (a secondary outcome) worsened slightly in the postoperative period.

One limitation of our study is that we did not assess the blind of the anesthesiologists who administered the study drug. While it is possible that close inspection of the intraoperative processed EEG could reveal changes consistent with a 0.5 mg/kg subanesthetic ketamine infusion59, we specifically instructed the anesthesiologists to avoid altering the patient’s anesthetic in response to the processed EEG during drug infusion (barring large excursions in PSI that correlate with patient awareness). Nonetheless, we cannot exclude the possibility that anesthesiologists who guessed the patient’s treatment allocation may have altered their anesthetic in a way that influenced postoperative mood.

Our results suggest that when differential subject-expectancy bias is minimized with successful masking, the treatment effect size of ketamine is reduced considerably. However, a major limitation of our study is that we did not measure treatment expectancies prior to randomization. Therefore, we cannot definitively conclude that subject-expectancy bias mediates the causal relationship between effective masking and smaller treatment effect sizes. Regardless of the intervention being tested, subject expectations of a positive outcome—also known as hope—may drive large decreases in depression symptoms seen in antidepressant trials60. Our trial design cannot distinguish between a null-effect of ketamine for depression and an occlusion of ketamine’s antidepressant effect through a placebo-like mechanism maintained in the absence of unmasking.

CONCLUSION

This trial utilized surgical anesthesia to successfully mask the allocation of a single antidepressant dose of ketamine or placebo in a sample of depressed patients and found that depression scores at 1, 2, and 3 days post-infusion did not differ between trial groups. Secondary and exploratory outcomes also found no evidence of benefit for ketamine over placebo. These findings differ from those of prior antidepressant trials with ketamine conducted without adequate masking, where the large effect sizes reported may reflect expectancy bias. Our results suggest that ketamine may actually be ineffective for the short-term treatment of MDD. While it is impractical to use surgical anesthesia for most placebo-controlled trials, future studies of novel antidepressants with acute psychoactive effects should make stronger efforts to mask treatment assignment to minimize the effects of subject-expectancy bias.

DATA AVAILABILITY

De-identified participant data, data dictionaries, study protocol, and statistical analysis plan are available upon request after publication of this manuscript. To gain access to trial data for scientific research purposes, qualified researchers must submit a research proposal and statistical analysis plan for review and approval, and execute a data sharing agreement. Please direct all inquiries and requests to bheifets{at}stanford.edu.

CODE AVAILABILITY

R code used for data analysis is available upon request after publication of this manuscript. To gain access to the code for scientific research purposes, qualified researchers must submit a code use proposal for review and approval. Please direct all inquiries and requests to bheifets{at}stanford.edu.

Data Availability

De-identified participant data, data dictionaries, study protocol, and statistical analysis plan are available upon request after publication of the primary results manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal. To gain access to trial data for scientific research purposes, qualified researchers must submit a brief research proposal and statistical analysis plan for review and approval, and execute a data sharing agreement. Please direct all inquiries and requests to bheifets@stanford.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge Ms. Kayla Pfaff (Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Medical Student, Athens, Ohio, USA) and Dr. Rasmus Thordstein MD (Lund University, Lund, Sweden) for assistance with contacting patients, and Dr. Vishweshwara Ramachandran MBBS, MBA (Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA) for implementing the PHQ-2 survey into the Anesthesia Preoperative Evaluation Clinic electronic workflow at Stanford.

Statistical support was provided by Data Studio (Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA), which is supported by the National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR003142.

Screening and outcomes data were entered into Stanford REDCap (version 13.4.10), a secure online data capture platform (http://redcap.stanford.edu) developed and operated by Stanford Medicine Research IT team. The REDCap platform services at Stanford are subsidized by a) Stanford School of Medicine Research Office, and b) the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant UL1 TR001085.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Sleigh J, Harvey M, Voss L, Denny B. Ketamine – More mechanisms of action than just NMDA blockade. Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care. 2014;4(2):76–81. doi:10.1016/j.tacc.2014.03.002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. 2.↵
    Bonaventura J, Lam S, Carlton M, et al. Pharmacological and behavioral divergence of ketamine enantiomers: implications for abuse liability. Mol Psychiatry. 2021;26(11):6704–6722. doi:10.1038/s41380-021-01093-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    Berman RM, Cappiello A, Anand A, et al. Antidepressant effects of ketamine in depressed patients. Biological Psychiatry. 2000;47(4):351–354. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00230-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.
    McIntyre RS, Rosenblat JD, Nemeroff CB, et al. Synthesizing the Evidence for Ketamine and Esketamine in Treatment-Resistant Depression: An International Expert Opinion on the Available Evidence and Implementation. AJP. 2021;178(5):383–399. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.20081251
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Zarate CA, Singh JB, Carlson PJ, et al. A Randomized Trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate Antagonist in Treatment-Resistant Major Depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(8):856–864. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.8.856
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    Marcantoni WS, Akoumba BS, Wassef M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of intravenous ketamine infusion for treatment resistant depression: January 2009 – January 2019. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2020;277:831–841. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.09.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    Butler M, Jelen L, Rucker J. Expectancy in placebo-controlled trials of psychedelics: if so, so what? Psychopharmacology. 2022;239(10):3047–3055. doi:10.1007/s00213-022-06221-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.
    Hall WD, Humphreys K. Is good science leading the way in the therapeutic use of psychedelic drugs? Psychological Medicine. 2022;52(14):2849–2851. doi:10.1017/S0033291722003191
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.
    Aday JS, Heifets BD, Pratscher SD, Bradley E, Rosen R, Woolley JD. Great Expectations: recommendations for improving the methodological rigor of psychedelic clinical trials. Psychopharmacology. 2022;239(6):1989–2010. doi:10.1007/s00213-022-06123-7
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Muthukumaraswamy SD, Forsyth A, Lumley T. Blinding and expectancy confounds in psychedelic randomized controlled trials. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2021;14(9):1133–1152. doi:10.1080/17512433.2021.1933434
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    Price RB, Spotts C, Panny B, et al. A Novel, Brief, Fully Automated Intervention to Extend the Antidepressant Effect of a Single Ketamine Infusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial. AJP. 2022;179(12):959–968. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220216
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1-3):163-173. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  13. 13.↵
    Fekadu A, Donocik JG, Cleare AJ. Standardisation framework for the Maudsley staging method for treatment resistance in depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):100. doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1679-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22–33;quiz 34-57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Montgomery SA, Åsberg M. A New Depression Scale Designed to be Sensitive to Change. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 1979;134(4):382–389. doi:10.1192/bjp.134.4.382
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983;67(6):361-370. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Pinto-Meza A, Serrano-Blanco A, Peñarrubia MT, Blanco E, Haro JM. Assessing Depression in Primary Care with the PHQ-9: Can It Be Carried Out over the Telephone? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005;20(8):738–742. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0144.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    Hedman E, Ljótsson B, Blom K, et al. Telephone Versus Internet Administration of Self-Report Measures of Social Anxiety, Depressive Symptoms, and Insomnia: Psychometric Evaluation of a Method to Reduce the Impact of Missing Data. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(10):e229. doi:10.2196/jmir.2818
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Hermens ML, Adèr HJ, van Hout HP, Terluin B, van Dyck R, de Haan M. Administering the MADRS by telephone or face-to-face: a validity study. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2006;5(1):3. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-5-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Kobak KA, Williams JBW, Jeglic E, Salvucci D, Sharp IR. Face-to-face versus remote administration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale using videoconference and telephone. Depress Anxiety. 2008;25(11):913–919. doi:10.1002/da.20392
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Posner K, Brown GK, Stanley B, et al. The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial Validity and Internal Consistency Findings From Three Multisite Studies With Adolescents and Adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2011;168(12):1266–1277. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10111704
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Nagele P, Palanca BJ, Gott B, et al. A phase 2 trial of inhaled nitrous oxide for treatment-resistant major depression. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13(597):eabe1376. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abe1376
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    Kishimoto T, Chawla JM, Hagi K, et al. Single-dose infusion ketamine and non-ketamine N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists for unipolar and bipolar depression: a meta-analysis of efficacy, safety and time trajectories. Psychol Med. 2016;46(7):1459–1472. doi:10.1017/S0033291716000064
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Nierenberg AA, DeCecco LM. Definitions of antidepressant treatment response, remission, nonresponse, partial response, and other relevant outcomes: a focus on treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62 Suppl 16:5–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Machado M, Iskedjian M, Ruiz I, Einarson TR. Remission, dropouts, and adverse drug reaction rates in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials. Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2006;22(9):1825–1837. doi:10.1185/030079906X132415
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Keller S, Bann CM, Dodd SL, Schein J, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS. Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory for Use in Documenting the Outcomes of Patients With Noncancer Pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain. 2004;20(5):309.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    Mendoza TR, Chen C, Brugger A, et al. The Utility and Validity of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory in a Multiple-Dose Postoperative Analgesic Trial. The Clinical Journal of Pain. 2004;20(5):357.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    Opioid Oral Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME) Conversion Factors | Guidance Portal. Accessed June 21, 2022. https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/opioid-oral-morphine-milligram-equivalent-mme-conversion-factors-0
  29. 29.↵
    Phillips JL, Norris S, Talbot J, et al. Single, Repeated, and Maintenance Ketamine Infusions for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2019;176(5):401–409. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18070834
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Hengartner MP, Plöderl M. Estimates of the minimal important difference to evaluate the clinical significance of antidepressants in the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depression. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2022;27(2):69–73. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111600
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    Horvath B, Kloesel B, Todd MM, Cole DJ, Prielipp RC. The Evolution, Current Value, and Future of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System. Anesthesiology. 2021;135(5):904–919. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000003947
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. 32.↵
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases. 1987;40(5):373–383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. 33.↵
    Murrough JW, Iosifescu DV, Chang LC, et al. Antidepressant Efficacy of Ketamine in Treatment-Resistant Major Depression: A Two-Site Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2013;170(10):1134–1142. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13030392
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. 34.
    Sos P, Klirova M, Novak T, Kohutova B, Horacek J, Palenicek T. Relationship of ketamine’s antidepressant and psychotomimetic effects in unipolar depression. Published online 2013:8.
  35. 35.↵
    Singh JB, Fedgchin M, Daly EJ, et al. A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Frequency Study of Intravenous Ketamine in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2016;173(8):816–826. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.16010037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Sanacora G, Frye MA, McDonald W, et al. A Consensus Statement on the Use of Ketamine in the Treatment of Mood Disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(4):399. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.0080
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Nagele P, Duma A, Kopec M, et al. Nitrous Oxide for Treatment-Resistant Major Depression: A Proof-of-Concept Trial. Biological Psychiatry. 2015;78(1):10–18. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.11.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    Mickey BJ, White AT, Arp AM, et al. Propofol for Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Pilot Study. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;21(12):1079–1089. doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyy085
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    Weeks HR, Tadler SC, Smith KW, et al. Antidepressant and Neurocognitive Effects of Isoflurane Anesthesia versus Electroconvulsive Therapy in Refractory Depression. Lu L, ed. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e69809. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069809
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Williams NR, Heifets BD, Blasey C, et al. Attenuation of Antidepressant Effects of Ketamine by Opioid Receptor Antagonism. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2018;175(12):1205–1215. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.18020138
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Marton T, Barnes DE, Wallace A, Woolley JD. Concurrent Use of Buprenorphine, Methadone, or Naltrexone Does Not Inhibit Ketamine’s Antidepressant Activity. Biol Psychiatry. 2019;85(12):e75–e76. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.02.008
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, et al. Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1):28–40. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    Chen MH, Wu HJ, Li CT, et al. Using classification and regression tree modelling to investigate treatment response to a single low-dose ketamine infusion: Post hoc pooled analyses of randomized placebo-controlled and open-label trials. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2021;281:865–871. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.045
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Pennybaker SJ, Niciu MJ, Luckenbaugh DA, Zarate CA. Symptomatology and predictors of antidepressant efficacy in extended responders to a single ketamine infusion. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2017;208:560–566. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    Jesus-Nunes AP, Leal GC, Correia-Melo FS, et al. Clinical predictors of depressive symptom remission and response after racemic ketamine and esketamine infusion in treatment-resistant depression. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental. 2022;37(4):e2836. doi:10.1002/hup.2836
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.↵
    Guo J, Qiu D, Gu H wen, et al. Efficacy and safety of perioperative application of ketamine on postoperative depression: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Mol Psychiatry. Published online January 20, 2023:1–11. doi:10.1038/s41380-023-01945-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  47. 47.↵
    Mortero RF, Clark LD, Tolan MM, Metz RJ, Tsueda K, Sheppard RA. The Effects of Small-Dose Ketamine on Propofol Sedation: Respiration, Postoperative Mood, Perception, Cognition, and Pain. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2001;92(6):1465. doi:10.1097/00000539-200106000-00022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. 48.
    Aubrun F, Gaillat C, Rosenthal D, et al. Effect of a low-dose ketamine regimen on pain, mood, cognitive function and memory after major gynaecological surgery: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2008;25(2):97–105. doi:10.1017/S0265021507002566
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 49.
    Jiang M, Wang MH, Wang XB, et al. Effect of intraoperative application of ketamine on postoperative depressed mood in patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery. Journal of Anesthesia. 2016;30(2):232–237. doi:10.1007/s00540-015-2096-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.
    Lee C, Lee J, Lee G, Lee H, Shicheng Z, Hwang J. The effects of a combination of intravenous dexamethasone and ketamine on postoperative mood in patients undergoing laparoscopically assisted-gynecologic surgery. Psychopharmacology. 2018;235(8):2417–2422. doi:10.1007/s00213-018-4939-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    Mashour GA, Ben Abdallah A, Pryor KO, et al. Intraoperative ketamine for prevention of depressive symptoms after major surgery in older adults: an international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2018;121(5):1075–1083. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2018.03.030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Kudoh A, Takahira Y, Katagai H, Takazawa T. Small-Dose Ketamine Improves the Postoperative State of Depressed Patients. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2002;95(1):114. doi:10.1097/00000539-200207000-00020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  53. 53.↵
    Liu P, Li P, Li Q, et al. Effect of Pretreatment of S-Ketamine On Postoperative Depression for Breast Cancer Patients. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2021;34(8):883–888. doi:10.1080/08941939.2019.1710626
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Zhou Y, Sun W, Zhang G, et al. Ketamine Alleviates Depressive Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Intracranial Tumor Resection: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2021;133(6):1588–1597. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005752
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Irle E, Peper M, Wowra B, Kunze S. Mood changes after surgery for tumors of the cerebral cortex. Arch Neurol. 1994;51(2):164–174. doi:10.1001/archneur.1994.00540140070017
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 56.↵
    Jenkins LM, Drummond KJ, Andrewes DG. Emotional and personality changes following brain tumour resection. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;29:128–132. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.12.007
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. 57.↵
    McGirr A, Berlim MT, Bond DJ, Chan PY, Yatham LN, Lam RW. Adjunctive ketamine in electroconvulsive therapy: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2017;210(6):403–407. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.116.195826
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    Anderson IM, Blamire A, Branton T, et al. Ketamine augmentation of electroconvulsive therapy to improve neuropsychological and clinical outcomes in depression (Ketamine-ECT): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(5):365–377. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30077-9
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  59. 59.↵
    Vlisides PE, Bel-Bahar T, Lee U, et al. Neurophysiologic Correlates of Ketamine Sedation and Anesthesia: A High-density Electroencephalography Study in Healthy Volunteers. Anesthesiology. 2017;127(1):58–69. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001671
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  60. 60.↵
    Rutherford BR, Wall MM, Glass A, Stewart JW. The Role of Patient Expectancy in Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Antidepressant Trials. J Clin Psychiatry. 2014;75(10):1040–1046. doi:10.4088/JCP.13m08797
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted May 01, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Trial of Ketamine Masked by Surgical Anesthesia in Depressed Patients
Theresa R. Lii, Ashleigh E. Smith, Josephine R. Flohr, Robin L. Okada, Cynthia A. Nyongesa, Lisa J. Cianfichi, Laura M. Hack, Alan F. Schatzberg, Boris D. Heifets
medRxiv 2023.04.28.23289210; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.28.23289210
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area