Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 12;2021(9):CD011612. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011612.pub3

Ionescu 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods Double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled, multicentre study
Participants Diagnosis: DSM‐5 major depressive disorder with suicidal ideation
N: 230
Age: esketamine M = 40.2 (SD=12.72); placebo M = 41.4 (SD = 13.43)
Sex: esketamine 60.5% female; placebo 59.3% female
Baseline depression severity: esketamine group MADRS M = 39.5 (SD = 5.19); placebo group MADRS M = 39.9 (SD = 5.76)
Interventions Participants were randomised to receive either 84 mg esketamine nasal spray or matching placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks.
Concomitant medications: all participants received standard‐of‐care oral antidepressant(s) initiated or optimised at randomisation.
Outcomes MADRS
CGI‐SS‐r
Response
Remission
Adverse events
Notes Authors kindly provided additional data for remission rates according to this review's definition, MADRS and CGI‐SS‐r scores.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to 84 mg esketamine nasal spray or matching placebo nasal spray according to a computer‐generated schedule".
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to 84 mg esketamine nasal spray or matching placebo nasal spray according to a computer‐generated schedule".
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Stated but not tested.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk Different raters were used for efficacy and safety ratings, however it is likely patients were unblinded by dissociative side effects of esketamine.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Low risk Flow diagram of participants throughout study included. Participant withdrawal rate reported, similar between groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Trial registered (NCT03097133), outcomes reported as expected.
Other bias High risk Study funded by and authors employed by pharmaceutical company.