[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.  Search Process Summarizing the Review and Exclusion of Studies
Search Process Summarizing the Review and Exclusion of Studies

BPRS indicates Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; IV, intravenous.

Figure 2.  Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in Total Symptoms Scores for Healthy Volunteers After Ketamine vs Placebo Administration
Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in Total Symptoms Scores for Healthy Volunteers After Ketamine vs Placebo Administration

Scores include Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. A statistically significant increase in total symptoms occurred in healthy volunteers in the ketamine condition compared with the placebo condition (SMD = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.23-1.77]; P < .001). Each square shows the effect size for a single study, with the horizontal error bars representing the width of the 95% CI. The size of the squares reflects the weight attributed to each study. The diamond illustrates the summary effect size, and the width of the diamond depicts the width of the overall 95% CI.

Figure 3.  Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in Positive Symptom Scores for Healthy Volunteers After Ketamine vs Placebo Administration
Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in Positive Symptom Scores for Healthy Volunteers After Ketamine vs Placebo Administration

Scores include Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. A statistically significant increase in positive symptoms occurred in healthy volunteers in the ketamine condition compared with the placebo condition (SMD = 1.55 [95% CI, 1.29-1.81]; P < .001). Each square shows the effect size for a single study, with the horizontal error bars representing the width of the 95% CI. The size of the squares reflects the weight attributed to each study. The diamond illustrates the summary effect size, and the width of the diamond depicts the width of the overall 95% CI.

Figure 4.  Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in Negative Symptom Scores in Healthy Volunteers After Ketamine vs Placebo Administration
Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) in Negative Symptom Scores in Healthy Volunteers After Ketamine vs Placebo Administration

Scores include Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. A statistically significant increase in negative symptoms occurred in healthy volunteers in the ketamine condition compared with the placebo condition (SMD = 1.16 [95% CI, 0.96-1.35]; P < .001). Each square shows the effect size for a single study, with the horizontal error bars representing the width of the 95% CI. The size of the squares reflects the weight attributed to each study. The diamond illustrates the summary effect size, and the width of the diamond depicts the width of the overall 95% CI.

Table.  Summary of Sample and Study Characteristics of Included Studies Involving Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Schizophreniaa
Summary of Sample and Study Characteristics of Included Studies Involving Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Schizophreniaa
Supplement.

eMethods 1. Studies and Data Not Included in Meta-analysis

eMethods 2. Newcastle-Ottawa Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies

eMethods 3. Cochrane Tool for Assessment of Bias Within Individual Studies

eMethods 4. Cochrane Tool for Assessment of Bias Across Studies

eMethods 5. Refitting the Model Using ri’s Taking Values 0.1

eMethods 6. Refitting the Model Using ri’s Taking Values 0.7

eMethods 7. Comparison of the Effect of Ketamine on Positive and Negative Symptoms Using Correlation Coefficient of 0.1

eMethods 8. Comparison of the Effect of Ketamine on Positive and Negative Symptoms Using Correlation Coefficient of 0.7

eMethods 9. Heterogeneity Statistics for Subgroup Analyses

eMethods 10. Subanalyses of Type of Symptom Scale Used

eFigure 1. Funnel Plot for Total Symptoms

eFigure 2. Funnel Plot for Positive Symptoms

eFigure 3. Funnel Plot for Negative Symptoms

eFigure 4. Subgroup Analysis of Single-Day vs Multiple-Day Studies for Total Symptoms

eFigure 5. Subgroup Analysis of Method of Infusion (Bolus and a Continuous Infusion vs Only a Continuous Infusion) Positive Symptoms

eTable 1. Raw Data Used in Total BPRS and PANSS Analysis for Healthy Participants

eTable 2. Raw Data Used in Positive BPRS and PANSS Analysis for Healthy Participants

eTable 3. Raw Data Used in Negative BPRS and PANSS Analysis for Healthy Participants

eTable 4. Raw Data used in Total, Negative and Positive BPRS and PANSS Analysis for People With Schizophrenia

eTable 5. Study Description, Ketamine Method, Placebo Condition, Symptoms (BPRS and PANSS), and Exclusion Criteria in Studies Examining Acute Ketamine Administration in Healthy Controls

eTable 6. Study Description, Ketamine Administration Method, Placebo Condition, Symptoms (BPRS), and Exclusion Criteria in Studies Examining Acute Ketamine Administration to Patients With Schizophrenia

eReferences.

1.
Stevenson  C.  Ketamine: a review.   Updat Anaesth. 2005;20(20):25-29.Google Scholar
2.
Schwartzman  RJ, Alexander  GM, Grothusen  JR, Paylor  T, Reichenberger  E, Perreault  M.  Outpatient intravenous ketamine for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind placebo controlled study.   Pain. 2009;147(1-3):107-115. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.015 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Krystal  JH, Perry  EB  Jr, Gueorguieva  R,  et al.  Comparative and interactive human psychopharmacologic effects of ketamine and amphetamine: implications for glutamatergic and dopaminergic model psychoses and cognitive function.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(9):985-994. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.9.985 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Vollenweider  FX, Geyer  MA.  A systems model of altered consciousness: integrating natural and drug-induced psychoses.   Brain Res Bull. 2001;56(5):495-507. doi:10.1016/S0361-9230(01)00646-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Krystal  JH, Karper  LP, Seibyl  JP,  et al.  Subanesthetic effects of the noncompetitive NMDA antagonist, ketamine, in humans: psychotomimetic, perceptual, cognitive, and neuroendocrine responses.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(3):199-214. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950030035004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
McGirr  A, Berlim  MT, Bond  DJ, Fleck  MP, Yatham  LN, Lam  RW.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ketamine in the rapid treatment of major depressive episodes.   Psychol Med. 2015;45(4):693-704. doi:10.1017/S0033291714001603 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Daly  EJ, Singh  JB, Fedgchin  M,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine adjunctive to oral antidepressant therapy in treatment-resistant depression: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(2):139-148. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3739 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.   JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-e34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
D’Souza  DC, Fridberg  DJ, Skosnik  PD,  et al.  Dose-related modulation of event-related potentials to novel and target stimuli by intravenous Δ9-THC in humans.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37(7):1632-1646. doi:10.1038/npp.2012.8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Morgan  CJA, Freeman  TP, Hindocha  C, Schafer  G, Gardner  C, Curran  HV.  Individual and combined effects of acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on psychotomimetic symptoms and memory function.   Transl Psychiatry. 2018;8(1):181. doi:10.1038/s41398-018-0191-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Leucht  S, Cipriani  A, Spineli  L,  et al.  Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.   Lancet. 2013;382(9896):951-962. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60733-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Nicholson  IR, Chapman  JE, Neufeld  RWJ.  Variability in BPRS definitions of positive and negative symptoms.   Schizophr Res. 1995;17(2):177-185. doi:10.1016/0920-9964(94)00088-P PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Andreasen  N.  Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms. University of Iowa; 1984.
15.
Andreasen  N.  Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms. University of Iowa; 1984.
16.
Higgins  JPT, Altman  DG, Gøtzsche  PC,  et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Figure 8.6.a. John Wiley & Sons; 2011. Accessed August 24, 2019. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_8/figure_8_6_a_example_of_a_risk_of_bias_table_for_a_single.htm
18.
Viechtbauer  W.  Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.   J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 Google ScholarCrossref
19.
McCutcheon  RA, Pillinger  T, Mizuno  Y,  et al.  The efficacy and heterogeneity of antipsychotic response in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.   Mol Psychiatry. 2019;(August):1-11. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0502-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Brugger  SP, Howes  OD.  Heterogeneity and homogeneity of regional brain structure in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(11):1104-1111. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2663 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Kirkham  JJ, Riley  RD, Williamson  PR.  A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews.   Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179-2195. doi:10.1002/sim.5356 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Bowden  J, Tierney  JF, Copas  AJ, Burdett  S.  Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):41. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-41 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Higgins  JPT, Thompson  SG, Deeks  JJ, Altman  DG.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.   BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Egger  M, Davey Smith  G, Schneider  M, Minder  C.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.   BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Malhotra  AK, Pinals  DA, Adler  CM,  et al.  Ketamine-induced exacerbation of psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment in neuroleptic-free schizophrenics.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1997;17(3):141-150. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(97)00036-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Lahti  AC, Weiler  MA, Tamara Michaelidis  BA, Parwani  A, Tamminga  CA.  Effects of ketamine in normal and schizophrenic volunteers.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;25(4):455-467. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00243-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
Malhotra  AK, Breier  A, Goldman  D, Picken  L, Pickar  D.  The apolipoprotein E ε 4 allele is associated with blunting of ketamine-induced psychosis in schizophrenia: a preliminary report.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1998;19(5):445-448. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00031-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Kleinloog  D, Uit den Boogaard  A, Dahan  A,  et al.  Optimizing the glutamatergic challenge model for psychosis, using S+-ketamine to induce psychomimetic symptoms in healthy volunteers.   J Psychopharmacol. 2015;29(4):401-413. doi:10.1177/0269881115570082 PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Thiebes  S, Leicht  G, Curic  S,  et al.  Glutamatergic deficit and schizophrenia-like negative symptoms: new evidence from ketamine-induced mismatch negativity alterations in healthy male humans.   J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2017;42(4):273-283. doi:10.1503/jpn.160187 PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Kraguljac  NV, Frölich  MA, Tran  S,  et al.  Ketamine modulates hippocampal neurochemistry and functional connectivity: a combined magnetic resonance spectroscopy and resting-state fMRI study in healthy volunteers.   Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22(4):562-569. doi:10.1038/mp.2016.122 PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Newcomer  JW, Farber  NB, Jevtovic-Todorovic  V,  et al.  Ketamine-induced NMDA receptor hypofunction as a model of memory impairment and psychosis.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1999;20(2):106-118. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00067-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Krystal  JH, Madonick  S, Perry  E,  et al.  Potentiation of low dose ketamine effects by naltrexone: potential implications for the pharmacotherapy of alcoholism.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(8):1793-1800. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300994 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Grent-’t-Jong  T, Rivolta  D, Gross  J,  et al.  Acute ketamine dysregulates task-related gamma-band oscillations in thalamo-cortical circuits in schizophrenia.   Brain. 2018;141(8):2511-2526. doi:10.1093/brain/awy175 PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
D’Souza  DC, Carson  RE, Driesen  N, Johannesen  J, Ranganathan  M, Krystal  JH; Yale GlyT1 Study Group.  Dose-related target occupancy and effects on circuitry, behavior, and neuroplasticity of the glycine transporter-1 inhibitor pf-03463275 in healthy and schizophrenia subjects.   Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(6):413-421. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.12.019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Krystal  JH, Karper  LP, Bennett  A,  et al.  Interactive effects of subanesthetic ketamine and subhypnotic lorazepam in humans.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1998;135(3):213-229. doi:10.1007/s002130050503 PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Duncan  EJ, Madonick  SH, Parwani  A,  et al.  Clinical and sensorimotor gating effects of ketamine in normals.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;25(1):72-83. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(00)00240-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Parwani  A, Weiler  MA, Blaxton  TA,  et al.  The effects of a subanesthetic dose of ketamine on verbal memory in normal volunteers.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005;183(3):265-274. doi:10.1007/s00213-005-0177-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Rowland  LM, Astur  RS, Jung  RE, Bustillo  JR, Lauriello  J, Yeo  RA.  Selective cognitive impairments associated with NMDA receptor blockade in humans.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30(3):633-639. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300642 PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Breier  A, Malhotra  AK, Pinals  DA, Weisenfeld  NI, Pickar  D.  Association of ketamine-induced psychosis with focal activation of the prefrontal cortex in healthy volunteers.   Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154(6):805-811. doi:10.1176/ajp.154.6.805 PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
van Berckel  BN, Oranje  B, van Ree  JM, Verbaten  MN, Kahn  RS.  The effects of low dose ketamine on sensory gating, neuroendocrine secretion and behavior in healthy human subjects.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1998;137(3):271-281. doi:10.1007/s002130050620 PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Dickerson  D, Pittman  B, Ralevski  E,  et al.  Ethanol-like effects of thiopental and ketamine in healthy humans.   J Psychopharmacol. 2010;24(2):203-211. doi:10.1177/0269881108098612 PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Abel  KM, Allin  MPG, Kucharska-Pietura  K,  et al.  Ketamine and fMRI BOLD signal: distinguishing between effects mediated by change in blood flow versus change in cognitive state.   Hum Brain Mapp. 2003;18(2):135-145. doi:10.1002/hbm.10064 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Kort  NS, Ford  JM, Roach  BJ,  et al.  Role of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in action-based predictive coding deficits in schizophrenia.   Biol Psychiatry. 2017;81(6):514-524. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.06.019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Anand  A, Charney  DS, Oren  DA,  et al.  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. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.57.3.270 PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Krystal  JH, D’Souza  DC, Karper  LP,  et al.  Interactive effects of subanesthetic ketamine and haloperidol in healthy humans.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;145(2):193-204. doi:10.1007/s002130051049 PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Krystal  JH, Petrakis  IL, Limoncelli  D,  et al.  Altered NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist response in recovering ethanol-dependent patients.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28(11):2020-2028. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300252 PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Micallef  J, Guillermain  Y, Tardieu  S,  et al.  Effects of subanesthetic doses of ketamine on sensorimotor information processing in healthy subjects.   Clin Neuropharmacol. 2002;25(2):101-106. doi:10.1097/00002826-200203000-00008 PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
Boeijinga  PH, Soufflet  L, Santoro  F, Luthringer  R.  Ketamine effects on CNS responses assessed with MEG/EEG in a passive auditory sensory-gating paradigm: an attempt for modelling some symptoms of psychosis in man.   J Psychopharmacol. 2007;21(3):321-337. doi:10.1177/0269881107077768 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Höflich  A, Hahn  A, Küblböck  M,  et al.  Ketamine-induced modulation of the thalamo-cortical network in healthy volunteers as a model for schizophrenia.   Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;18(9):1-11. doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyv040 PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
Vernaleken  I, Klomp  M, Moeller  O,  et al.  Vulnerability to psychotogenic effects of ketamine is associated with elevated D2/3-receptor availability.   Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;16(4):745-754. doi:10.1017/S1461145712000764 PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
D’Souza  DC, Ahn  K, Bhakta  S,  et al.  Nicotine fails to attenuate ketamine-induced cognitive deficits and negative and positive symptoms in humans: implications for schizophrenia.   Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(9):785-794. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.05.009 PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Rowland  LM, Beason-Held  L, Tamminga  CA, Holcomb  HH.  The interactive effects of ketamine and nicotine on human cerebral blood flow.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010;208(4):575-584. doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1758-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Stone  JM, Abel  KM, Allin  MPG,  et al.  Ketamine-induced disruption of verbal self-monitoring linked to superior temporal activation.   Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011;44(1):33-48. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1267942PubMedGoogle Scholar
54.
Abdallah  CG, De Feyter  HM, Averill  LA,  et al.  The effects of ketamine on prefrontal glutamate neurotransmission in healthy and depressed subjects.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(10):2154-2160. doi:10.1038/s41386-018-0136-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Passie  T, Karst  M, Borsutzky  M, Wiese  B, Emrich  HM, Schneider  U.  Effects of different subanaesthetic doses of (S)-ketamine on psychopathology and binocular depth inversion in man.   J Psychopharmacol. 2003;17(1):51-56. doi:10.1177/0269881103017001698 PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Horacek  J, Brunovsky  M, Novak  T,  et al.  Subanesthetic dose of ketamine decreases prefrontal theta cordance in healthy volunteers: implications for antidepressant effect.   Psychol Med. 2010;40(9):1443-1451. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991619 PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Morgan  HL, Turner  DC, Corlett  PR,  et al.  Exploring the impact of ketamine on the experience of illusory body ownership.   Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(1):35-41. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.032 PubMedGoogle Scholar
58.
Powers  AR  III, Gancsos  MG, Finn  ES, Morgan  PT, Corlett  PR.  Ketamine-induced hallucinations.   Psychopathology. 2015;48(6):376-385. doi:10.1159/000438675 PubMedGoogle Scholar
59.
Nagels  A, Kirner-Veselinovic  A, Krach  S, Kircher  T.  Neural correlates of S-ketamine induced psychosis during overt continuous verbal fluency.   Neuroimage. 2011;54(2):1307-1314. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Driesen  NR, McCarthy  G, Bhagwagar  Z,  et al.  Relationship of resting brain hyperconnectivity and schizophrenia-like symptoms produced by the NMDA receptor antagonist ketamine in humans.   Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18(11):1199-1204. doi:10.1038/mp.2012.194 PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Mathalon  DH, Ahn  K-H, Perry  EBJ  Jr,  et al.  Effects of nicotine on the neurophysiological and behavioral effects of ketamine in humans.   Front Psychiatry. 2014;5:3. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
62.
Morrison  RL, Fedgchin  M, Singh  J,  et al.  Effect of intranasal esketamine on cognitive functioning in healthy participants: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2018;235(4):1107-1119. doi:10.1007/s00213-018-4828-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
63.
van de Loo  AJAE, Bervoets  AC, Mooren  L,  et al.  The effects of intranasal esketamine (84 mg) and oral mirtazapine (30 mg) on on-road driving performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2017;234(21):3175-3183. doi:10.1007/s00213-017-4706-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
64.
Lahti  AC, Holcomb  HH, Medoff  DR, Tamminga  CA.  Ketamine activates psychosis and alters limbic blood flow in schizophrenia.   Neuroreport. 1995;6(6):869-872. doi:10.1097/00001756-199504190-00011 PubMedGoogle Scholar
65.
Lahti  AC, Koffel  B, LaPorte  D, Tamminga  CA.  Subanesthetic doses of ketamine stimulate psychosis in schizophrenia.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1995;13(1):9-19. doi:10.1016/0893-133X(94)00131-I PubMedGoogle Scholar
66.
Holcomb  HH, Lahti  AC, Medoff  DR, Cullen  T, Tamminga  CA.  Effects of noncompetitive NMDA receptor blockade on anterior cingulate cerebral blood flow in volunteers with schizophrenia.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30(12):2275-2282. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300824 PubMedGoogle Scholar
67.
Medoff  DR, Holcomb  HH, Lahti  AC, Tamminga  CA.  Probing the human hippocampus using rCBF: contrasts in schizophrenia.   Hippocampus. 2001;11(5):543-550. doi:10.1002/hipo.1070 PubMedGoogle Scholar
68.
LaPorte  DJ, Lahti  AC, Koffel  B, Tamminga  CA.  Absence of ketamine effects on memory and other cognitive functions in schizophrenia patients.   J Psychiatr Res. 1996;30(5):321-330. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(96)00018-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
69.
Lahti  AC, Warfel  D, Michaelidis  T, Weiler  MA, Frey  K, Tamminga  CA.  Long-term outcome of patients who receive ketamine during research.   Biol Psychiatry. 2001;49(10):869-875. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01037-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
70.
Malhotra  AK, Adler  CM, Kennison  SD, Elman  I, Pickar  D, Breier  A.  Clozapine blunts N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist-induced psychosis: a study with ketamine.   Biol Psychiatry. 1997;42(8):664-668. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00546-X PubMedGoogle Scholar
71.
Leucht  S, Kane  JM, Kissling  W, Hamann  J, Etschel  E, Engel  RR.  What does the PANSS mean?   Schizophr Res. 2005;79(2-3):231-238. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2005.04.008 PubMedGoogle Scholar
72.
Farber  NB, Wozniak  DF, Price  MT,  et al.  Age-specific neurotoxicity in the rat associated with NMDA receptor blockade: potential relevance to schizophrenia?   Biol Psychiatry. 1995;38(12):788-796. doi:10.1016/0006-3223(95)00046-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
73.
Morgan  CJA, Perry  EB, Cho  H-S, Krystal  JH, D’Souza  DC.  Greater vulnerability to the amnestic effects of ketamine in males.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006;187(4):405-414. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0409-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
74.
Jevtovic-Todorovic  V, Wozniak  DF, Benshoff  ND, Olney  JW.  A comparative evaluation of the neurotoxic properties of ketamine and nitrous oxide.   Brain Res. 2001;895(1-2):264-267. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(01)02079-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
75.
Winters  WD, Hance  AJ, Cadd  GC, Lakin  ML.  Seasonal and sex influences on ketamine-induced analgesia and catalepsy in the rat: a possible role for melatonin.   Neuropharmacology. 1986;25(10):1095-1101. doi:10.1016/0028-3908(86)90156-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
76.
Schulz  KF, Altman  DG, Moher  D; CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.   BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 PubMedGoogle Scholar
77.
Perry  EB  Jr, Cramer  JA, Cho  H-S,  et al; Yale Ketamine Study Group.  Psychiatric safety of ketamine in psychopharmacology research.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007;192(2):253-260. doi:10.1007/s00213-007-0706-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
78.
Zarate  CA  Jr, 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
79.
Fond  G, Loundou  A, Rabu  C,  et al.  Ketamine administration in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231(18):3663-3676. doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3664-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
80.
Musso  F, Brinkmeyer  J, Ecker  D,  et al.  Ketamine effects on brain function—simultaneous fMRI/EEG during a visual oddball task.   Neuroimage. 2011;58(2):508-525. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.045 PubMedGoogle Scholar
81.
Umbricht  D, Schmid  L, Koller  R, Vollenweider  FX, Hell  D, Javitt  DC.  Ketamine-induced deficits in auditory and visual context-dependent processing in healthy volunteers: implications for models of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57(12):1139-1147. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.57.12.1139 PubMedGoogle Scholar
82.
Cho  H-S, D’Souza  DC, Gueorguieva  R,  et al.  Absence of behavioral sensitization in healthy human subjects following repeated exposure to ketamine.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005;179(1):136-143. doi:10.1007/s00213-004-2066-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
83.
Cheung  MW-L, Cheung  SF.  Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: review, issues, and illustrations.   Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(2):140-155. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1166 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Psychiatry
    May 21, 2020

    就治疗方式和对精神分裂症的理解而言,氯胺酮与精神病症状及意义的关联性: 系统评价和荟萃分析

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
    • 2Psychiatric Imaging Group, MRC (Medical Research Council) London Institute of Medical Sciences, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom
    • 3South London and Maudsley NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
    • 4Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
    • 5Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    • 6Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    • 7Yale University Medical School, Veterans Affairs Connecticut Health Care System, West Haven
    • 8Department of Psychiatry and National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven
    • 9University Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom
    • 10Department of Veteran Affairs National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Clinical Neurosciences Division, Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven
    • 11Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(5):e204693. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4693
    关键点 español English

    问题  在健康志愿者和精神分裂症患者中,精神病结局与盐酸氯胺酮有何关联?哪些因素与这些结局有关?

    结果  这项荟萃分析涉及 36 项研究,其中包括 725 名健康的非重复参与者。分析发现,相对于安慰剂,氯胺酮的急性给药与健康志愿者和精神分裂症患者的精神病阳性和阴性症状的有意义增加有关。相比阴性症状和单独输注,这种关联性对于阳性症状和输注加推注而言更大。

    意义  这些调查结果表明,氯胺酮与健康志愿者的类精神病症状有关,并且在用于治疗环境时,应避免以推注方式给予氯胺酮。

    Abstract

    Importance  Ketamine hydrochloride is increasingly used to treat depression and other psychiatric disorders but can induce schizophrenia-like or psychotomimetic symptoms. Despite this risk, the consistency and magnitude of symptoms induced by ketamine or what factors are associated with these symptoms remain unknown.

    Objective  To conduct a meta-analysis of the psychopathological outcomes associated with ketamine in healthy volunteers and patients with schizophrenia and the experimental factors associated with these outcomes.

    Data Sources  MEDLINE, Embase, and PsychINFO databases were searched for within-participant, placebo-controlled studies reporting symptoms using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) in response to an acute ketamine challenge in healthy participants or patients with schizophrenia.

    Study Selection  Of 8464 citations retrieved, 36 studies involving healthy participants were included. Inclusion criteria were studies (1) including healthy participants; (2) reporting symptoms occurring in response to acute administration of subanesthetic doses of ketamine (racemic ketamine, s-ketamine, r-ketamine) intravenously; (3) containing a placebo condition with a within-subject, crossover design; (4) measuring total positive or negative symptoms using BPRS or PANSS; and (5) providing data allowing the estimation of the mean difference and deviation between the ketamine and placebo condition.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  Two independent investigators extracted study-level data for a random-effects meta-analysis. Total, positive, and negative BPRS and PANSS scores were extracted. Subgroup analyses were conducted examining the effects of blinding status, ketamine preparation, infusion method, and time between ketamine and placebo conditions. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used as effect sizes for individual studies. Standardized mean differences between ketamine and placebo conditions were calculated for total, positive, and negative BPRS and PANSS scores.

    Results  The overall sample included 725 healthy volunteers (mean [SD] age, 28.3 [3.6] years; 533 [73.6%] male) exposed to the ketamine and placebo conditions. Racemic ketamine or S-ketamine was associated with a statistically significant increase in transient psychopathology in healthy participants for total (SMD = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.23-1.77]; P < .001), positive (SMD = 1.55 [95% CI, 1.29-1.81]; P < .001), and negative (SMD = 1.16 [95% CI, 0.96-1.35]; P < .001) symptom ratings relative to the placebo condition. The effect size for this association was significantly greater for positive than negative symptoms of psychosis (estimate, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.12-0.61]; P = .004). There was significant inconsistency in outcomes between studies (I2 range, 77%-83%). Bolus followed by constant infusion increased ketamine’s association with positive symptoms relative to infusion alone (effect size, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.36-1.90] vs 0.84 [95% CI, 0.35-1.33]; P = .006). Single-day study design increased ketamine’s ability to generate total symptoms (effect size, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.69-2.89] vs 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]; P = .007), but age and sex did not moderate outcomes. Insufficient studies were available for meta-analysis of studies in schizophrenia. Of these studies, 2 found a statistically significant increase in symptoms with ketamine administration in total and positive symptoms. Only 1 study found an increase in negative symptom severity with ketamine.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study found that acute ketamine administration was associated with schizophrenia-like or psychotomimetic symptoms with large effect sizes, but there was a greater increase in positive than negative symptoms and when a bolus was used. These findings suggest that bolus doses should be avoided in the therapeutic use of ketamine to minimize the risk of inducing transient positive (psychotic) symptoms.

    Introduction

    Ketamine hydrochloride was first synthesized in 1962.1 It is a phencyclidine derivative that acts on the glutamate system by antagonizing N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors.1 Ketamine has been used to model the symptoms of schizophrenia and is used in the treatment of severe depression and pain management2 as well as being used recreationally. Misuse can be hazardous, leading to drug addiction.

    In the 1960s, NMDA antagonists, such as ketamine, were identified as inducing clinical symptoms similar to those seen in schizophrenia, more so than other psychotomimetics used in past drug models of psychosis.3,4 In particular, in addition to inducing positive symptoms, such as perceptual changes and delusions, ketamine induces negative symptoms, such as blunted affect and emotional withdrawal.5 Many studies have been conducted to investigate its effect on healthy people, but the methods vary greatly, and the observed behavioral responses differ.

    Despite the recognition that ketamine can induce transient schizophrenia-like symptoms,5 the consistency and magnitude of its effect on positive and negative symptoms remains unclear. Moreover, it is unclear how blinding status, ketamine preparation, infusion method, and time between the ketamine and placebo conditions are associated with the generation of symptoms.

    The development of ketamine and its derivatives as antidepressants6,7 means that determining the extent to which ketamine induces schizophrenia-like or psychotomimetic symptoms and what factors are associated with this outcome is particularly timely in order to understand and minimize the risks of adverse events associated with the therapeutic use of ketamine. We also aimed to evaluate outcomes in patients with schizophrenia to determine whether they are more sensitive to ketamine.

    We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of ketamine with positive, negative, and total psychopathological outcomes in healthy volunteers and patients with schizophrenia. Many studies use ketamine to inform understanding of the mechanisms underlying schizophrenia. This specific use of ketamine is the main focus of our review, but we also use the findings to inform understanding of other uses of ketamine.

    Methods
    Selection Procedures

    A meta-analysis was performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)8 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)9 frameworks. Three authors (K.B., G.H., and F.B.) independently searched MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 3, 2020), Embase (from 1974 to February 3, 2020), and PsychINFO (from 1806 to January 27, 2020). The following keywords were used: (Ketamine) and (psycho* NOT psychotherapy or schiz* or BPRS or brief psychiatric rating scale or PANSS or positive and negative syndrome scale or positive symp* or negative symp*). Meta-analyses and systematic and narrative review articles were hand-searched for additional reports. Abstracts were screened, and the full texts of suitable studies were obtained. If full texts were not available, authors were contacted and full content was requested. Authors were also contacted when Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) or Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) subscales (total, negative, or positive) were missing or if the individual items included in the positive or negative scales were not reported. Three authors (K.B., G.H., and F.B.) selected the final studies included in the meta-analysis based on the following criteria.

    Selection Criteria for the Meta-analysis of Ketamine’s Effects in Healthy Volunteers

    Inclusion criteria were studies (1) including healthy participants, (2) reporting symptoms occurring in response to acute administration of subanesthetic doses of ketamine (racemic ketamine, s-ketamine, or r-ketamine) intravenously, (3) containing a placebo condition with a within-participant, crossover design, (4) measuring total positive or negative symptoms using the BPRS or PANSS, and (5) providing data allowing the estimation of the mean difference and deviation between the ketamine and placebo condition. We used the PANSS and BPRS scales as the measures of symptom severity because they are well validated, standardized assessments of psychopathology used in both healthy participants and patients with schizophrenia.10,11 They assess the same symptom dimensions and are commonly combined in meta-analyses.12 We included all versions of the total BPRS because often the version was not specified. All versions measure the same rating items, but some include more items than others. However, all included studies are within-person studies, and so this should not affect the analysis. Exclusion criteria consisted of 1 or more of the following factors: (1) no placebo condition, (2) no report of any total, negative, or positive scores (see the following sections for more details), (3) absence of measures in either the ketamine or the placebo condition, (4) no report of original data, (5) no data provided that enabled the standardized mean differences (SMDs) to be calculated (such as the SD or the standard error of the mean), (6) no more than 2 participants in each group, and/or (7) concurrent administration of other pharmacological compounds in addition to ketamine.

    Selection Criteria for the Meta-analysis of Ketamine’s Effects in Schizophrenia

    The selection criteria for studies investigating the effect of ketamine in patients with schizophrenia were the same as the criteria for healthy volunteers. The only additional criterion was for participants to have a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

    Additional Symptom Subdomain Inclusion Criteria for Both Meta-analyses

    Studies used different combinations of symptom items in their positive and negative BPRS scores. We included studies in the negative analysis if their BPRS scale included all 3 negative symptom items: blunted affect, emotional withdrawal, and motor retardation. We included studies in the positive analysis if they included more than 3 positive symptom items: conceptual disorganization, hallucinatory behavior, unusual thought content, and suspiciousness. These symptom items correlate most strongly and reliably with validated scales of positive and negative symptoms13: the Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms14 and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms,15 respectively. If the symptom items included in the scale were not documented, we requested the information from authors (eMethods 1 in the Supplement).

    Recorded Variables

    The primary outcome measures were the effect sizes for total, positive, and negative BPRS and PANSS scores in healthy participants or in patients with schizophrenia for ketamine compared with placebo conditions. Data were extracted from every study for author, year of publication, number of participants, participant age, sex, diagnosis, study design, details of the placebo condition, past or present psychiatric diagnoses among healthy volunteers, recent substance misuse or dependence history, family history of psychosis, major medical or neurological disorder, prior exposure to ketamine, concurrent psychotropic medication use, ketamine preparation, dose and timing of ketamine administration relative to the symptom measures, and mean (SD) measure of symptoms in the ketamine and placebo conditions. Plot digitizer software was used to examine reliability for the data from studies in which data were only available in a plot format.

    The highest available ketamine dose was selected if multiple doses were reported. All data sets included in the meta-analysis were independent, and there was no overlap in the participants included in the meta-analyses. The raw data are provided in eTables 1 to 4 in the Supplement.

    Risk of Bias

    Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for assessing risk in nonrandomized studies and the Cochrane assessment of risk of bias tool.16,17 Scores were calculated by 2 investigators (K.B., G.H.). Studies with scores of at least 7 were considered to have a low risk of bias (eMethods 2-4 in the Supplement).

    Statistical Analysis

    Statistical analyses were conducted using the metafor package, version 1.9-9, with R software, version 3.3.1 (R Project for Statistical Computing). Random-effects models based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation were used in all analyses. Random-effects models were deemed preferable for this analysis owing to substantial between-study differences in study design. Effect sizes or SMDs for individual studies were estimated by calculating the standardized mean change scores. Mean differences in symptom measurements between the ketamine and placebo conditions were used to calculate the standardized mean change score. The 95% CI of the effect size was also calculated.

    The SMD was defined for each study as follows18:

    Image description not available.

    where MKet and MSal are the mean scores and SDKet and SDSal are the SDs for the ketamine and saline (placebo) conditions, respectively, with r denoting the between-condition correlation for symptom scores under saline and ketamine conditions. The correlation coefficient was set to 0.5 for all studies in our main analysis based on evidence from studies in schizophrenia.19,20 However, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of this assumption on our main results by refitting our model using r values ranging from 0.1 and 0.7 (eMethods 5 and 6 in the Supplement).

    To determine whether ketamine had a greater association with positive or negative symptoms, a multivariate meta-analytic approach was adopted using an unstructured variance-covariance matrix. Because within-study correlations between positive and negative symptom scores are not reported, we estimated the correlation coefficient to be 0.5 based on prior studies.20 To investigate the influence of this value on the findings, we conducted sensitivity analyses using correlation coefficients of 0.1 and 0.7 (eMethods 7 and 8 in the Supplement).21

    Inconsistency or heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the Cochran Q statistic22 and I2 statistic.23 An I2 statistic of less than 25% was taken to indicate low inconsistency; 25% to 75%, medium inconsistency; and greater than 75%, high inconsistency. The I2 statistics were calculated for each subgroup analysis. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

    Publication bias and selective reporting were assessed using the Egger regression test of the intercept24 and were represented diagrammatically with funnel plots as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (eFigures 1-3 in the Supplement). Trim-and-fill analyses were also conducted.

    Secondary subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to examine the effects of study design. Specifically, we compared effect size in double-blind vs single-blind or unblinded studies; s-ketamine vs racemic ketamine; bolus followed by constant infusion administration vs infusion alone; and single-day (ketamine and placebo were given on the same day) vs multiple-day (ketamine and placebo given on different days) studies. In addition, we compared the effect size from studies using the BPRS with those using the PANSS to determine whether the method of measuring symptoms was associated with the magnitude of the effect. The statistical significance of subgroup differences was determined by fitting separate random-effects models for each subgroup and then comparing subgroup summary estimates in a fixed-effects model with a Wald-type test. A significance level of P < .05 (2 tailed) was adopted (see eMethods 9 and 10 in the Supplement for further details).

    Results
    Retrieved Studies for the Meta-analysis of Healthy Volunteers

    A total of 36 studies involving 725 unique participants (mean [SD] age, 28.3 [3.6] years; 533 male [73.6%] and 192 female [26.5%]) were included in the meta-analysis.3,25,28-61 Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flowchart. The included studies are summarized in the Table, with further details in eTable 5 in the Supplement. Ketamine was administered intravenously in all studies. The search identified 2 additional studies using inhaled administration, but these did not have data available.62,63

    Total Psychopathological Symptoms

    Total symptom scores were analyzed using data from 25 studies25,29-33,36-38,40-43,48-57,59,61 including 491 healthy participants exposed to the ketamine and placebo conditions. Total symptom scores were increased in the ketamine condition compared with the placebo condition (SMD = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.23-1.77]; P < .001) (Figure 2). The finding remained statistically significant in all iterations of the leave-one-out analysis (SMD range, 1.44-1.55; P < .001).

    Statistically significant between-sample inconsistency was found, with an I2 value of 75.7% (Cochran Q = 96.57; P < .001). The Egger test (z = 4.27; P < .001) suggested that publication bias was statistically significant. Trim-and-fill analysis estimated 3 missing studies on the left side of eFigure 1 in the Supplement, indicating that negative studies may have not been reported. However, our results remained statistically significant when the putative missing studies were included (SMD = 1.37 [95% CI, 1.07-1.67]; P < .001). Meta-regressions of effect sizes against age (n = 24)5,29-33,36-38,40-43,48-53,55-57,59,61 and sex (n = 22)25,29-31,33,36-38,40-43,48,50-53,55-57,59,61 showed that neither factor was a statistically significant moderator of effect sizes.

    Ketamine Preparation

    Both racemic ketamine and s-ketamine preparations resulted in a statistically significant increase in total symptom scores compared with placebo. Large effect sizes were found for racemic ketamine (SMD = 1.40 [95% CI, 1.12-1.68]; P < .001) and s-ketamine (SMD, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.15-2.92]; P < .001). There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Blinding Method

    Unblinded or single-blind methods (SMD = 1.71 [95% CI, 1.02-2.39]; P < .001) and double-blind methods (SMD = 1.45 [95% CI, 1.15-1.75]; P < .001) both resulted in a statistically significant association of the ketamine condition with total symptoms. There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Infusion Method

    Bolus and a continuous infusion (SMD = 1.55 [95% CI, 1.23-1.88]; P < .001) and a continuous infusion only (SMD = 1.27 [95% CI, 0.73-1.81]; P < .001) were both associated with a statistically significant increase in total symptoms. There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Single-Day vs Multiple-Day Studies

    Two single-day studies29,30 (SMD = 2.29 [95% CI, 1.69-2.89]; P < .001) and 17 multiple-day studies25,31,36-38,40-43,48,50-53,55,56,61 (SMD = 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]; P < .001) were associated with a statistically significant increase in total symptoms. Studies in which ketamine and placebo conditions were conducted on the same day found a significantly greater magnitude of effect (effect size, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.69-2.89] vs 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]; P = .007) (eFigure 4 in the Supplement).

    Positive Psychotic Symptoms

    Positive symptom scores were analyzed using data from 21 studies3,28-35,39,41,44-47,49-51,58-60 consisting of 513 healthy participants exposed to the ketamine and placebo conditions. Positive symptom scores were transiently increased in the ketamine condition compared with the placebo condition (SMD = 1.55 [95% CI, 1.29-1.81]; P < .001) (Figure 3). The result remained statistically significant in all iterations of the leave-one-out analysis (SMD range, 1.47-1.60; P < .001).

    Statistically significant between-sample inconsistency was found, with an I2 value of 74.9% (Cochran Q = 81.40; P < .001). Findings of the Egger test (z = 5.06; P < .001) suggested that publication bias was significant. Trim-and-fill analysis estimated 1 missing study on the left side (eFigure 2 in the Supplement). Results remained statistically significant with putative missing studies included (SMD = 1.49 [95% CI, 1.18-1.80]; P < .001). Meta-regressions of effect sizes against age (n = 20)3,29-35,39,41,44-47,49-51,58-60 or sex (n = 19)3,28-31,33-35,39,41,44-47,50,51,58-60 showed that neither was a statistically significant moderator of effect sizes.

    Ketamine Preparation

    Both racemic ketamine (SMD = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.17-1.82]; P < .001) and s-ketamine (SMD = 1.70 [95% CI, 1.23-2.18]; P < .001) preparations resulted in a statistically significant increase in positive symptom scores compared with placebo, both with large effect sizes. There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Blinding Method

    Unblinded or single-blind (SMD = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.96-1.67]; P < .001) and double-blind (SMD = 1.68 [95% CI, 1.30-2.07]; P < .001) methods resulted in a statistically significant effect of ketamine condition on the positive symptoms. However, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the effect between the 2 methods.

    Infusion Method

    Both a bolus followed by continuous infusion method (n = 19)28-35,39,41,44,45,49-51,58-60,64 (SMD = 1.63 [95% CI, 1.36-1.90]; P < .001) and a continuous infusion alone (n = 2)46,47 (SMD = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.35-1.33]; P < .008) induced a statistically significant increase in positive symptoms. However, studies using a bolus and continuous infusion method induced a statistically significantly greater magnitude of effect (effect size, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.36-1.90) compared to continuous infusion alone (effect size, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.35-1.33]; P = .006) (eFigure 5 in the Supplement).

    Single-Day vs Multiple-Day Studies

    Single-day (SMD = 1.54 [95% CI, 1.19-1.89]; P < .001) and multiple-day (SMD = 1.53 [95% CI, 1.15-1.90]; P < .001) studies both resulted in a statistically significant increase in positive symptoms. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the effect between the 2 methods.

    Negative Symptoms

    Negative symptom scores were analyzed using data from 22 studies3,25,28-30,32-36,41,44-47,49-51,54,58-60 consisting of 527 healthy participants exposed to the ketamine and placebo conditions. Negative symptom scores were transiently increased in the ketamine condition compared with the placebo condition (SMD = 1.16 [95% CI, 0.96-1.35]; P < .001) (Figure 4). The result remained statistically significant in all iterations of the leave-one-out analysis (SMD range, 1.11-1.19; P < .001).

    Statistically significant between-sample inconsistency was found, with an I2 value of 64.6% (Cochran Q = 66.55; P < .001). Findings of the Egger test (z = 5.12; P < .001) suggested that publication bias was significant. Trim-fill analysis estimated 2 missing studies on the left side of eFigure 3 in the Supplement. Results remained statistically significant with putative missing studies included (SMD = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.30]; P < .001). Meta-regressions of effect sizes against age (n = 20)3,25,29,30,32-36,41,44-47,49-51,58-60 or sex (n = 19)3,25,28-30,33-36,41,44-47,50,51,58-60 showed that neither was a statistically significant moderator of effect sizes.

    Ketamine Preparation

    Both racemic ketamine (SMD = 1.13 [95% CI, 0.90-1.36]; P < .001) and s-ketamine (SMD = 1.25 [95% CI, 0.86-1.64]; P < .001) preparations resulted in a statistically significant transient increase in negative symptom scores compared with placebo, with large effect sizes. There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Blinding Method

    Unblinded or single-blind (SMD = 0.98 [95% CI, 0.63-1.34]; P < .001) and double-blind (SMD = 1.29 [95% CI, 1.09-1.50]; P < .001) methods resulted in a statistically significant association of the ketamine condition with negative symptoms. There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Infusion Method

    Both bolus and a continuous infusion (SMD = 1.19 [95% CI, 0.96-1.41]; P < .001) and a continuous infusion only (SMD = 1.06 [95% CI, 0.71-1.40]; P < .001) were associated with a statistically significant increase in negative symptoms. There was no significant difference between the methods on the magnitude of the effect size.

    Single-Day vs Multiple-Day Studies

    Single-day (SMD = 1.01 [95% CI, 0.56-1.47]; P < .001) and multiple-day (SMD = 1.16 [95% CI, 0.94-1.39]; P < .001) studies both resulted in a statistically significant increase in negative symptoms. However, there was no significant difference in the magnitude of the effect between the 2 methods.

    Comparison of Positive and Negative Effect Sizes

    A comparison of effect sizes demonstrated that the ketamine condition had a greater association with positive symptoms compared with negative symptoms (estimate, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.12-0.61]; z = 2.90; P = .004).

    Subanalyses of BPRS and PANSS scales are presented in eMethods 10 in the Supplement. In summary, there was no significant difference between the 2 measures for any of the symptom domains (total, positive, and negative). Inconsistency analyses for the subanalyses are presented in eMethods 9 in the Supplement.

    Effects of Ketamine in Patients With Schizophrenia

    After 7 studies with overlapping data sets were excluded,64-70 3 studies were included in the analysis of patients with schizophrenia.25-27 No meta-analysis was possible because there were an insufficient number of papers. Studies with change scores were included in this section of the review.

    Two studies25,26 examined the association of acute ketamine administration on total BPRS scores in patients with schizophrenia, and both found that ketamine was associated with a statistically significant increase in total BPRS scores. Two studies26,27 investigated the association of ketamine administration with positive and negative BPRS scores in patients with schizophrenia. Both found ketamine was associated with a statistically significant transient increase in positive symptoms. One study27 found ketamine was associated with a statistically significant increase in negative symptoms, but the other study26 to assess this factor did not find a significant association of ketamine with negative symptoms. The findings of these studies are summarized in eTable 4 in the Supplement.

    Risk of Bias Across Studies

    Eight studies29,41,50,51,54,55,57,58 had a high risk of bias when the Newcastle-Ottawa tool was used to assess bias, mainly owing to not documenting certain aspects of the design protocol and therefore losing a point for being unclear. The Cochrane tool for assessment of bias across studies highlighted an unclear risk of bias across the selection bias domain but low risk across all other domains (performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias) (eMethods 2-4 in the Supplement).

    Discussion

    Our main findings were that acute ketamine administration was associated with a large effect size for increases in positive, negative, and total symptom scores in healthy volunteers. Moreover, ketamine was associated with greater increases in positive symptoms than in negative symptoms.

    Insufficient studies were available to conduct a meta-analysis of the association of ketamine with psychopathology in schizophrenia. Although transient increases in positive, negative, and total symptoms in patients with schizophrenia were reported, given the limited data, firm conclusions on effects in schizophrenia cannot be drawn, and further studies are needed. These findings extend the understanding of the symptoms associated with ketamine by showing that either racemic ketamine or s-ketamine are associated with positive, negative, and total symptoms in healthy volunteers with very large effect sizes across study settings and designs. To give some clinical context to the increased effect sizes seen with ketamine administration, the average mean difference in the total PANSS scores between the placebo and ketamine conditions was 18.40. Were this increase in symptom rating to occur in a patient with schizophrenia, it would approximately equate to a change from mild illness severity to markedly ill on the Clinical Global Impression Scale and represent a clinically meaningful increase in symptoms.71

    This study identifies high levels of between-study inconsistency. Our subgroup analyses indicate that this inconsistency could be owing to study design factors. Specifically, studies that used a bolus plus infusion protocol showed larger increases (approximately double) in positive symptoms than those using only a continuous infusion. Moreover, studies that administered ketamine and placebo on the same day found a greater increase in total symptoms. The first finding could be owing to a faster time to and/or higher peak concentration of ketamine, consistent with a study showing a positive association between ketamine concentration and symptom induction.28 It is less clear why giving ketamine and placebo on the same day was associated with greater induction of symptoms, but this factor could reflect unblinding because one study was unblinded29 and the other was single blinded with the condition order randomized.30 Another explanation might be that both conditions on the same day controls better for the day-to-day variance that may occur in mood and biology. When heterogeneity was assessed for each individual subgroup, it was moderate to high for most analyses, suggesting that these subgroups did not account for all of the inconsistency seen within the meta-analysis.

    Association of Age and Sex With Ketamine-Induced Psychopathology

    Neither age nor sex were associated with the severity of psychotic symptoms induced by ketamine in healthy volunteers. However, the studies included in our meta-analysis only include adults (range of mean ages, 22-40 years). In children, fewer ketamine-induced symptoms might occur because children are less likely to experience psychotic symptoms than adults when given ketamine for anesthesia.1 However, animal studies find that ketamine has a greater neurotoxic effect in the period from puberty to early adulthood.72 Sex did not moderate the magnitude of effect for any of the symptom measures in our study, consistent with findings by Morgan and colleagues73 but in contrast with preclinical evidence that female rats are more susceptible than male rats to the neurotoxic74 and behavioral75 effects of ketamine. This difference between clinical and preclinical evidence may reflect the higher doses used in the animal studies (5-180 mg/kg) compared with humans (approximately 0.65 mg/kg).

    Implications for Future Study Design and Reporting

    Our findings are of particular relevance for the therapeutic use of ketamine and for future study design. First, we provide evidence that the use of bolus plus continuous infusion is associated with larger transient psychotomimetic effects. Second, inadequate reporting of methods precluded our ability to test the effects of other key methodological factors. One recommendation from our findings is therefore for future studies to report methods with greater detail to enable these factors to be investigated and aid replication.76 Details of specific relevance to studies such as these include the dose of ketamine and fasting status before receiving ketamine.

    Ketamine Model of Schizophrenia

    We found that ketamine was associated with the induction of both transient positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia in healthy people and with worsened symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. To the extent that any drug can model a complex disorder such as schizophrenia, the results of this meta-analysis support the use of ketamine to model schizophrenia-like or psychotomimetic symptoms and suggest that it provides a more comprehensive model of schizophrenia than drugs such as amphetamine, which does not reliably induce negative symptoms.3 However, we found that the induction of negative symptoms is statistically significantly less marked than that of positive psychotic symptoms in healthy people, and it was only seen in 1 of the 2 studies in schizophrenia.27 The negative symptom analysis had an extra study with a continuous infusion method. This difference may have reduced the effect because the continuous infusion method appears less likely than the bolus and continuous method to induce psychotic symptoms. However, the psychotic symptom analysis had more unblinded studies and fewer studies that completed both conditions on the same day. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations, this finding suggests that acute ketamine administration is associated with more positive than negative symptoms, although the magnitude of negative symptoms associated with ketamine is still large.

    Implications for Therapeutic Use of Ketamine

    Ketamine is being evaluated as a treatment for depression and some other disorders.2,6,7 Our findings highlight the potential risk that ketamine may induce transient positive (psychotic), negative, and other symptoms,77 particularly because the dose and route used to treat depression (approximately 0.5 mg/kg intravenously)6 is similar to those used in studies in this meta-analysis. Evidence suggests that ketamine can induce perceptual disturbances78 and psychotic symptoms in patients with depression (mean BPRS score, 12.6) with slightly higher positive BPRS scores than those seen in the studies included in this meta-analysis (average mean score across all BPRS studies, 7.5). People with a history of psychosis may be more vulnerable to the effects of ketamine. Our finding that using a bolus and continuous infusion method increases the effect of ketamine on psychotic symptoms highlights the importance of using slower infusions (40-60 minutes) of ketamine, an approach now adopted by some therapeutic trials.79

    Strengths and Limitations

    Strengths of this study include the relatively large sample size and inclusion of additional data provided by authors. However, there was significant inconsistency in the summary effect sizes, suggesting variability in effects between studies. This factor can be explained in part by differences in study design, as indicated by our sensitivity findings described above. We cannot explore the effect of other methodological differences that may contribute to inconsistency, such as differences in ketamine doses or fasting status, because few studies reported sufficient detail to allow this subanalysis. The inconsistency in total symptom score may also be explained by the inclusion of different BPRS versions. A mixture of 16, 18, 20, and 24 total item scales were used, and very few studies made it clear which items they included. Consequently, individual subgroup analyses of different versions could not be conducted.

    There were several important differences in exclusion criteria between the studies. In particular, most of the studies did not exclude concurrent use of psychotropic drugs,25,29,31-41,52-61,80,81 and only a few studies excluded participants with prior ketamine exposure.30,31,42,52,53 Although some evidence suggests that repeated ketamine exposure does not cause behavioral sensitization in humans,82 it would have been useful to have examined these data in more depth to determine whether these factors may alter results owing to drug tolerance or differences in subjective experience due to familiarity with prior exposure. Nevertheless, we used a random-effects model, which is a robust method of calculating the effect size when there is statistically significant inconsistency between studies.83

    Interestingly, the blinding status did not alter the magnitude of the effect size for total, positive, or negative symptoms. Blinding participants in these experiments may be very difficult because the dissociative anesthetic effects of ketamine can be very obvious to both participant and study personnel. This possibility may further explain the heterogeneity of results because the participants’ expectations may have contributed to their drug response. Future studies could include a low dose of ketamine or active comparator, such as midazolam hydrochloride, to address this important question.

    We aimed to determine ketamine’s maximal ability to induce psychotomimetic symptoms. Where symptom scales were reported at different time points, we selected the point with the highest ketamine-induced symptom score. Where this occurred, the symptom measure for the placebo group was taken at the corresponding point. Where studies included different concentrations of ketamine, we used the highest dose, again using the symptom score for the corresponding placebo condition. Therefore, the effect sizes in this study are likely to be the largest effect size seen with ketamine. Further work is thus required to better characterize the dose-response relationship and time course of ketamine’s psychotomimetic affects.

    Conclusions

    We provide meta-analytic evidence that ketamine is associated with the induction of transient positive, negative, and total symptoms, with a greater increase in positive than negative symptoms in healthy volunteers. These findings support the use of ketamine as a pharmacological model of schizophrenia and, given that using a bolus plus continuous infusion method leads to greater positive psychotic symptoms, indicate that the bolus plus infusion is the best approach for this model. Ketamine is used to treat pain and for major depression. Our findings indicate a potential risk of ketamine inducing schizophreniform symptoms when it is used for these indications and that a slow infusion without bolus is preferable to minimize these risks. Further research is needed to determine the risk of these effects when ketamine is used therapeutically.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: February 29, 2020.

    Published: May 21, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4693

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Beck K et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Oliver D. Howes, MRCPsych, PhD, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom (oliver.howes@kcl.ac.uk).

    Author Contributions: Drs Beck and Howes had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Beck, Borgan, McCutcheon, Brugger, Howes.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Beck, Hindley, Borgan, McCutcheon, Driesen, D'Souza, Howes.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Beck, Hindley, Borgan, Ginestet, McCutcheon, Brugger, D'Souza, Howes.

    Obtained funding: Beck, D'Souza, Howes.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Beck, Hindley, Borgan, McCutcheon, D'Souza, Krystal, Howes.

    Supervision: McCutcheon, Taylor, Krystal, Howes.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Beck reported receiving grants from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Rosetrees Trust during the conduct of the study. Dr Ranganathan reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study. Dr Ranganathan reported receiving grant funding from the NIH administered by Yale University, funding administered by Yale University from Roche and Insys Therapeutics, and consulting for Bioxcel Therapeutics. Dr D’Souza reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Organon International, Pfizer, Inc, AstraZeneca, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) during the conduct of the study; funding from the NIH administered by Yale University; funding administered by Yale University from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, the Heffter Institute, and the Wallace Foundation; and consulting for Abide. Dr Taylor reported receiving personal fees from H Lundbeck A/S, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc, outside the submitted work. Dr Krystal reported receiving grants from NCATS during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Sunovion Pharmacueticals, Inc, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Biogen, Inc, Cerevel Therapeutics, LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Taisho Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, and BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc, Terran Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, BlackThorn Therapeutics, Spring Health, Inc, Sage Therapeutics, Inc, and Inheris Pharmaceuticals, Inc, outside the submitted work; consulting relationships with AstraZeneca, Biogen, Inc, IDEC Corporation, Biomedisyn Corporation, Bionomics, Ltd (Australia), Boehringer Ingelheim International, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Epiodyne, Inc, Heptares Therapeutics, Janssen Research & Development, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Perception Neuroscience Holdings, Inc, Spring Health, Inc, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; serving on scientific advisory boards of Bioasis Technologies, Inc, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc (clinical advisory board), BlackThorn Therapeutics, Cadent Therapeutics (clinical advisory board), Cerevel Therapeutics, LLC, Lohocla Research Corporation, and PsychoGenics; a paid editorial relationship with Biological Psychiatry (editor); patents for dopamine and noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors in treatment of schizophrenia, glutamate modulating agents in the treatment of mental disorders, intranasal administration of ketamine to treat depression, methods for treating suicidal ideation, composition and methods to treat addiction, treatment selection for major depressive disorder, compounds, compositions, and methods for treating or preventing depression and other diseases, combination therapy for treating or preventing depression or other mood diseases, ketamine for treatment-resistant depression with royalties paid and for suicide prevention licensed, and riluzole for generalized anxiety with royalties paid; stock ownership in Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Spring Health, Inc; and stock options in Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Medical Sciences, BlackThorn Therapeutics, and Terran Life Sciences, Inc. Dr Howes reported receiving investigator-initiated research funding from and/or participating in advisory/speaker meetings organized by Angellini, AstraZeneca, Autifony Therapeutics, Biogen, Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, Heptares Therapeutics, Jansenn, H Lundbeck A/C, Lyden-Delta, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc, RAND Corporation, Recordati SpA, and Roche. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant MC-A656-5QD30 from the Medical Research Council, Maudsley Charity (no. 666), Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; grant 094849/Z/10/Z from Wellcome Trust (Dr Howes) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London; grants from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Dr Beck); grants from Rosetrees Trust (Dr Beck); grants from the Stoneygate Trust (Dr Beck); and grant 200102/Z/15/Z from the Wellcome Trust (Dr McCutcheon).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

    Additional Contributions: Chadi Abdallah, MD, National Center for PTSD–Clinical Neurosciences Division, US Department of Veterans Affairs, and Departments of Psychiatry, Neuroscience, and Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; Celia Morgan, PhD, Psychopharmacology and Addiction Research Centre, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom; Xu Ke, MD, Laboratory of Neurogenetics, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Rockville, Maryland; and Paul Fletcher, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, provided original data to include in the analysis. None of these contributors was compensated for this work.

    References
    1.
    Stevenson  C.  Ketamine: a review.   Updat Anaesth. 2005;20(20):25-29.Google Scholar
    2.
    Schwartzman  RJ, Alexander  GM, Grothusen  JR, Paylor  T, Reichenberger  E, Perreault  M.  Outpatient intravenous ketamine for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind placebo controlled study.   Pain. 2009;147(1-3):107-115. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.015 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Krystal  JH, Perry  EB  Jr, Gueorguieva  R,  et al.  Comparative and interactive human psychopharmacologic effects of ketamine and amphetamine: implications for glutamatergic and dopaminergic model psychoses and cognitive function.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(9):985-994. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.9.985 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Vollenweider  FX, Geyer  MA.  A systems model of altered consciousness: integrating natural and drug-induced psychoses.   Brain Res Bull. 2001;56(5):495-507. doi:10.1016/S0361-9230(01)00646-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Krystal  JH, Karper  LP, Seibyl  JP,  et al.  Subanesthetic effects of the noncompetitive NMDA antagonist, ketamine, in humans: psychotomimetic, perceptual, cognitive, and neuroendocrine responses.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(3):199-214. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950030035004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    McGirr  A, Berlim  MT, Bond  DJ, Fleck  MP, Yatham  LN, Lam  RW.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ketamine in the rapid treatment of major depressive episodes.   Psychol Med. 2015;45(4):693-704. doi:10.1017/S0033291714001603 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Daly  EJ, Singh  JB, Fedgchin  M,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine adjunctive to oral antidepressant therapy in treatment-resistant depression: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(2):139-148. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3739 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.   JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Liberati  A, Altman  DG, Tetzlaff  J,  et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-e34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    D’Souza  DC, Fridberg  DJ, Skosnik  PD,  et al.  Dose-related modulation of event-related potentials to novel and target stimuli by intravenous Δ9-THC in humans.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37(7):1632-1646. doi:10.1038/npp.2012.8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Morgan  CJA, Freeman  TP, Hindocha  C, Schafer  G, Gardner  C, Curran  HV.  Individual and combined effects of acute delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol on psychotomimetic symptoms and memory function.   Transl Psychiatry. 2018;8(1):181. doi:10.1038/s41398-018-0191-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Leucht  S, Cipriani  A, Spineli  L,  et al.  Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 15 antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.   Lancet. 2013;382(9896):951-962. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60733-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Nicholson  IR, Chapman  JE, Neufeld  RWJ.  Variability in BPRS definitions of positive and negative symptoms.   Schizophr Res. 1995;17(2):177-185. doi:10.1016/0920-9964(94)00088-P PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Andreasen  N.  Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms. University of Iowa; 1984.
    15.
    Andreasen  N.  Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms. University of Iowa; 1984.
    16.
    Higgins  JPT, Altman  DG, Gøtzsche  PC,  et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.   BMJ. 2011;343(7829):d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Figure 8.6.a. John Wiley & Sons; 2011. Accessed August 24, 2019. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_8/figure_8_6_a_example_of_a_risk_of_bias_table_for_a_single.htm
    18.
    Viechtbauer  W.  Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.   J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 Google ScholarCrossref
    19.
    McCutcheon  RA, Pillinger  T, Mizuno  Y,  et al.  The efficacy and heterogeneity of antipsychotic response in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.   Mol Psychiatry. 2019;(August):1-11. doi:10.1038/s41380-019-0502-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Brugger  SP, Howes  OD.  Heterogeneity and homogeneity of regional brain structure in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis.   JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(11):1104-1111. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2663 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Kirkham  JJ, Riley  RD, Williamson  PR.  A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews.   Stat Med. 2012;31(20):2179-2195. doi:10.1002/sim.5356 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Bowden  J, Tierney  JF, Copas  AJ, Burdett  S.  Quantifying, displaying and accounting for heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of RCTs using standard and generalised Q statistics.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):41. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-41 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Higgins  JPT, Thompson  SG, Deeks  JJ, Altman  DG.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.   BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Egger  M, Davey Smith  G, Schneider  M, Minder  C.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.   BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Malhotra  AK, Pinals  DA, Adler  CM,  et al.  Ketamine-induced exacerbation of psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment in neuroleptic-free schizophrenics.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1997;17(3):141-150. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(97)00036-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Lahti  AC, Weiler  MA, Tamara Michaelidis  BA, Parwani  A, Tamminga  CA.  Effects of ketamine in normal and schizophrenic volunteers.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;25(4):455-467. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00243-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    27.
    Malhotra  AK, Breier  A, Goldman  D, Picken  L, Pickar  D.  The apolipoprotein E ε 4 allele is associated with blunting of ketamine-induced psychosis in schizophrenia: a preliminary report.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1998;19(5):445-448. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00031-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    28.
    Kleinloog  D, Uit den Boogaard  A, Dahan  A,  et al.  Optimizing the glutamatergic challenge model for psychosis, using S+-ketamine to induce psychomimetic symptoms in healthy volunteers.   J Psychopharmacol. 2015;29(4):401-413. doi:10.1177/0269881115570082 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29.
    Thiebes  S, Leicht  G, Curic  S,  et al.  Glutamatergic deficit and schizophrenia-like negative symptoms: new evidence from ketamine-induced mismatch negativity alterations in healthy male humans.   J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2017;42(4):273-283. doi:10.1503/jpn.160187 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    30.
    Kraguljac  NV, Frölich  MA, Tran  S,  et al.  Ketamine modulates hippocampal neurochemistry and functional connectivity: a combined magnetic resonance spectroscopy and resting-state fMRI study in healthy volunteers.   Mol Psychiatry. 2017;22(4):562-569. doi:10.1038/mp.2016.122 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    31.
    Newcomer  JW, Farber  NB, Jevtovic-Todorovic  V,  et al.  Ketamine-induced NMDA receptor hypofunction as a model of memory impairment and psychosis.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1999;20(2):106-118. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(98)00067-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    32.
    Krystal  JH, Madonick  S, Perry  E,  et al.  Potentiation of low dose ketamine effects by naltrexone: potential implications for the pharmacotherapy of alcoholism.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2006;31(8):1793-1800. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300994 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    33.
    Grent-’t-Jong  T, Rivolta  D, Gross  J,  et al.  Acute ketamine dysregulates task-related gamma-band oscillations in thalamo-cortical circuits in schizophrenia.   Brain. 2018;141(8):2511-2526. doi:10.1093/brain/awy175 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    34.
    D’Souza  DC, Carson  RE, Driesen  N, Johannesen  J, Ranganathan  M, Krystal  JH; Yale GlyT1 Study Group.  Dose-related target occupancy and effects on circuitry, behavior, and neuroplasticity of the glycine transporter-1 inhibitor pf-03463275 in healthy and schizophrenia subjects.   Biol Psychiatry. 2018;84(6):413-421. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.12.019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    35.
    Krystal  JH, Karper  LP, Bennett  A,  et al.  Interactive effects of subanesthetic ketamine and subhypnotic lorazepam in humans.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1998;135(3):213-229. doi:10.1007/s002130050503 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    36.
    Duncan  EJ, Madonick  SH, Parwani  A,  et al.  Clinical and sensorimotor gating effects of ketamine in normals.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;25(1):72-83. doi:10.1016/S0893-133X(00)00240-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    37.
    Parwani  A, Weiler  MA, Blaxton  TA,  et al.  The effects of a subanesthetic dose of ketamine on verbal memory in normal volunteers.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005;183(3):265-274. doi:10.1007/s00213-005-0177-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    38.
    Rowland  LM, Astur  RS, Jung  RE, Bustillo  JR, Lauriello  J, Yeo  RA.  Selective cognitive impairments associated with NMDA receptor blockade in humans.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30(3):633-639. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300642 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    39.
    Breier  A, Malhotra  AK, Pinals  DA, Weisenfeld  NI, Pickar  D.  Association of ketamine-induced psychosis with focal activation of the prefrontal cortex in healthy volunteers.   Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154(6):805-811. doi:10.1176/ajp.154.6.805 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    40.
    van Berckel  BN, Oranje  B, van Ree  JM, Verbaten  MN, Kahn  RS.  The effects of low dose ketamine on sensory gating, neuroendocrine secretion and behavior in healthy human subjects.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1998;137(3):271-281. doi:10.1007/s002130050620 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    41.
    Dickerson  D, Pittman  B, Ralevski  E,  et al.  Ethanol-like effects of thiopental and ketamine in healthy humans.   J Psychopharmacol. 2010;24(2):203-211. doi:10.1177/0269881108098612 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    42.
    Abel  KM, Allin  MPG, Kucharska-Pietura  K,  et al.  Ketamine and fMRI BOLD signal: distinguishing between effects mediated by change in blood flow versus change in cognitive state.   Hum Brain Mapp. 2003;18(2):135-145. doi:10.1002/hbm.10064 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    43.
    Kort  NS, Ford  JM, Roach  BJ,  et al.  Role of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in action-based predictive coding deficits in schizophrenia.   Biol Psychiatry. 2017;81(6):514-524. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.06.019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    44.
    Anand  A, Charney  DS, Oren  DA,  et al.  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. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.57.3.270 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    45.
    Krystal  JH, D’Souza  DC, Karper  LP,  et al.  Interactive effects of subanesthetic ketamine and haloperidol in healthy humans.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;145(2):193-204. doi:10.1007/s002130051049 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    46.
    Krystal  JH, Petrakis  IL, Limoncelli  D,  et al.  Altered NMDA glutamate receptor antagonist response in recovering ethanol-dependent patients.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28(11):2020-2028. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300252 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    47.
    Micallef  J, Guillermain  Y, Tardieu  S,  et al.  Effects of subanesthetic doses of ketamine on sensorimotor information processing in healthy subjects.   Clin Neuropharmacol. 2002;25(2):101-106. doi:10.1097/00002826-200203000-00008 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    48.
    Boeijinga  PH, Soufflet  L, Santoro  F, Luthringer  R.  Ketamine effects on CNS responses assessed with MEG/EEG in a passive auditory sensory-gating paradigm: an attempt for modelling some symptoms of psychosis in man.   J Psychopharmacol. 2007;21(3):321-337. doi:10.1177/0269881107077768 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    49.
    Höflich  A, Hahn  A, Küblböck  M,  et al.  Ketamine-induced modulation of the thalamo-cortical network in healthy volunteers as a model for schizophrenia.   Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015;18(9):1-11. doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyv040 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    50.
    Vernaleken  I, Klomp  M, Moeller  O,  et al.  Vulnerability to psychotogenic effects of ketamine is associated with elevated D2/3-receptor availability.   Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2013;16(4):745-754. doi:10.1017/S1461145712000764 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    51.
    D’Souza  DC, Ahn  K, Bhakta  S,  et al.  Nicotine fails to attenuate ketamine-induced cognitive deficits and negative and positive symptoms in humans: implications for schizophrenia.   Biol Psychiatry. 2012;72(9):785-794. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.05.009 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    52.
    Rowland  LM, Beason-Held  L, Tamminga  CA, Holcomb  HH.  The interactive effects of ketamine and nicotine on human cerebral blood flow.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2010;208(4):575-584. doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1758-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    53.
    Stone  JM, Abel  KM, Allin  MPG,  et al.  Ketamine-induced disruption of verbal self-monitoring linked to superior temporal activation.   Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011;44(1):33-48. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1267942PubMedGoogle Scholar
    54.
    Abdallah  CG, De Feyter  HM, Averill  LA,  et al.  The effects of ketamine on prefrontal glutamate neurotransmission in healthy and depressed subjects.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(10):2154-2160. doi:10.1038/s41386-018-0136-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    55.
    Passie  T, Karst  M, Borsutzky  M, Wiese  B, Emrich  HM, Schneider  U.  Effects of different subanaesthetic doses of (S)-ketamine on psychopathology and binocular depth inversion in man.   J Psychopharmacol. 2003;17(1):51-56. doi:10.1177/0269881103017001698 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    56.
    Horacek  J, Brunovsky  M, Novak  T,  et al.  Subanesthetic dose of ketamine decreases prefrontal theta cordance in healthy volunteers: implications for antidepressant effect.   Psychol Med. 2010;40(9):1443-1451. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991619 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    57.
    Morgan  HL, Turner  DC, Corlett  PR,  et al.  Exploring the impact of ketamine on the experience of illusory body ownership.   Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(1):35-41. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.032 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    58.
    Powers  AR  III, Gancsos  MG, Finn  ES, Morgan  PT, Corlett  PR.  Ketamine-induced hallucinations.   Psychopathology. 2015;48(6):376-385. doi:10.1159/000438675 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    59.
    Nagels  A, Kirner-Veselinovic  A, Krach  S, Kircher  T.  Neural correlates of S-ketamine induced psychosis during overt continuous verbal fluency.   Neuroimage. 2011;54(2):1307-1314. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.021 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    60.
    Driesen  NR, McCarthy  G, Bhagwagar  Z,  et al.  Relationship of resting brain hyperconnectivity and schizophrenia-like symptoms produced by the NMDA receptor antagonist ketamine in humans.   Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18(11):1199-1204. doi:10.1038/mp.2012.194 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    61.
    Mathalon  DH, Ahn  K-H, Perry  EBJ  Jr,  et al.  Effects of nicotine on the neurophysiological and behavioral effects of ketamine in humans.   Front Psychiatry. 2014;5:3. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    62.
    Morrison  RL, Fedgchin  M, Singh  J,  et al.  Effect of intranasal esketamine on cognitive functioning in healthy participants: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2018;235(4):1107-1119. doi:10.1007/s00213-018-4828-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    63.
    van de Loo  AJAE, Bervoets  AC, Mooren  L,  et al.  The effects of intranasal esketamine (84 mg) and oral mirtazapine (30 mg) on on-road driving performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2017;234(21):3175-3183. doi:10.1007/s00213-017-4706-6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    64.
    Lahti  AC, Holcomb  HH, Medoff  DR, Tamminga  CA.  Ketamine activates psychosis and alters limbic blood flow in schizophrenia.   Neuroreport. 1995;6(6):869-872. doi:10.1097/00001756-199504190-00011 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    65.
    Lahti  AC, Koffel  B, LaPorte  D, Tamminga  CA.  Subanesthetic doses of ketamine stimulate psychosis in schizophrenia.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 1995;13(1):9-19. doi:10.1016/0893-133X(94)00131-I PubMedGoogle Scholar
    66.
    Holcomb  HH, Lahti  AC, Medoff  DR, Cullen  T, Tamminga  CA.  Effects of noncompetitive NMDA receptor blockade on anterior cingulate cerebral blood flow in volunteers with schizophrenia.   Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30(12):2275-2282. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300824 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    67.
    Medoff  DR, Holcomb  HH, Lahti  AC, Tamminga  CA.  Probing the human hippocampus using rCBF: contrasts in schizophrenia.   Hippocampus. 2001;11(5):543-550. doi:10.1002/hipo.1070 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    68.
    LaPorte  DJ, Lahti  AC, Koffel  B, Tamminga  CA.  Absence of ketamine effects on memory and other cognitive functions in schizophrenia patients.   J Psychiatr Res. 1996;30(5):321-330. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(96)00018-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    69.
    Lahti  AC, Warfel  D, Michaelidis  T, Weiler  MA, Frey  K, Tamminga  CA.  Long-term outcome of patients who receive ketamine during research.   Biol Psychiatry. 2001;49(10):869-875. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(00)01037-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    70.
    Malhotra  AK, Adler  CM, Kennison  SD, Elman  I, Pickar  D, Breier  A.  Clozapine blunts N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist-induced psychosis: a study with ketamine.   Biol Psychiatry. 1997;42(8):664-668. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00546-X PubMedGoogle Scholar
    71.
    Leucht  S, Kane  JM, Kissling  W, Hamann  J, Etschel  E, Engel  RR.  What does the PANSS mean?   Schizophr Res. 2005;79(2-3):231-238. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2005.04.008 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    72.
    Farber  NB, Wozniak  DF, Price  MT,  et al.  Age-specific neurotoxicity in the rat associated with NMDA receptor blockade: potential relevance to schizophrenia?   Biol Psychiatry. 1995;38(12):788-796. doi:10.1016/0006-3223(95)00046-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    73.
    Morgan  CJA, Perry  EB, Cho  H-S, Krystal  JH, D’Souza  DC.  Greater vulnerability to the amnestic effects of ketamine in males.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006;187(4):405-414. doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0409-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    74.
    Jevtovic-Todorovic  V, Wozniak  DF, Benshoff  ND, Olney  JW.  A comparative evaluation of the neurotoxic properties of ketamine and nitrous oxide.   Brain Res. 2001;895(1-2):264-267. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(01)02079-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    75.
    Winters  WD, Hance  AJ, Cadd  GC, Lakin  ML.  Seasonal and sex influences on ketamine-induced analgesia and catalepsy in the rat: a possible role for melatonin.   Neuropharmacology. 1986;25(10):1095-1101. doi:10.1016/0028-3908(86)90156-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    76.
    Schulz  KF, Altman  DG, Moher  D; CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.   BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    77.
    Perry  EB  Jr, Cramer  JA, Cho  H-S,  et al; Yale Ketamine Study Group.  Psychiatric safety of ketamine in psychopharmacology research.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007;192(2):253-260. doi:10.1007/s00213-007-0706-2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    78.
    Zarate  CA  Jr, 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    79.
    Fond  G, Loundou  A, Rabu  C,  et al.  Ketamine administration in depressive disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2014;231(18):3663-3676. doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3664-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    80.
    Musso  F, Brinkmeyer  J, Ecker  D,  et al.  Ketamine effects on brain function—simultaneous fMRI/EEG during a visual oddball task.   Neuroimage. 2011;58(2):508-525. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.045 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    81.
    Umbricht  D, Schmid  L, Koller  R, Vollenweider  FX, Hell  D, Javitt  DC.  Ketamine-induced deficits in auditory and visual context-dependent processing in healthy volunteers: implications for models of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57(12):1139-1147. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.57.12.1139 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    82.
    Cho  H-S, D’Souza  DC, Gueorguieva  R,  et al.  Absence of behavioral sensitization in healthy human subjects following repeated exposure to ketamine.   Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005;179(1):136-143. doi:10.1007/s00213-004-2066-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    83.
    Cheung  MW-L, Cheung  SF.  Random-effects models for meta-analytic structural equation modeling: review, issues, and illustrations.   Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(2):140-155. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1166 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    ×