Development of the Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET)

Background: Currently, no specific, systematic assessment tool for the monitoring and reporting of ketamine-related side effects exists. Our aim was to develop a comprehensive Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET) to capture acute and longer-term side effects associated with repeated ketamine treatments. Methods: Informed by systematic review data and clinical research, we drafted a list of the most commonly reported side effects. Face and content validation were obtained via feedback from collaborators with expertise in psychiatry and anaesthetics, clinical trial piloting and a modified Delphi Technique involving ten international experts. Results: The final version consisted of four forms that collect information at time points: screening, baseline, immediately after a single treatment, and longer-term follow-up. Instructions were developed to guide users and promote consistent utilisation. Limitations: Further evaluation of feasibility, construct validity and reliability is required, and is planned across multiple international sites. Conclusions: The structured Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET) was developed, with confirmation of content and face validity via a Delphi consensus process. This tool is timely, given the paucity of data regarding ketamine's safety, tolerability and abuse potential over the longer term, and its recent adoption internationally as a clinical treatment for depression. Although based on data from depression studies, the KSET has potential applicability for ketamine (or derivatives) used in other medical disorders, including chronic pain. We recommend its utilisation for both research and clinical scenarios, including data registries

The Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET):A comprehensive measurement-based safety tool for ketamine treatment in psychiatry

Objectives: On a background of the rapidly expanding clinical use of ketamine and esketamine for treatment of depression and other conditions, we examined safety monitoring, seeking to identify knowledge gaps relevant to clinical practice. Methods: An international group of psychiatrists discussed the issue of safety of ketamine and esketamine and came to a consensus on key safety gaps. Results: There is no standard safety monitoring for off-label generic ketamine. For intranasal esketamine, each jurisdiction providing regulatory approval may specify monitoring. Treatment is often provided beyond the period for which safety has been demonstrated, with no agreed framework for monitoring of longer term side effects for either generic ketamine or intranasal esketamine. Limitations: The KSET has established face and content validity, however it has not been validated against other measures of safety. Conclusions: We recommend the Ketamine Side Effect Tool (KSET) as a comprehensive safety monitoring tool for acute and longer term side effects

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Differentiation of the bipolar disorders from borderline personality disorder

Aims: Firstly, to identify a set of clinical variables that differentiates the bipolar disorders (BPs) from borderline personality disorder (BPD). Secondly, to examine the pan-diagnostic feature of emotional dysregulation. Thirdly, to examine the impact of differing diagnostic criteria on the capacity to differentiate the two conditions. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-six participants aged 18 years and older with a prior diagnosis of BP, BPD or both were recruited from several metropolitan clinical services. Diagnostic allocation was made on the basis of DSM-IV criteria and by clinical judgment. Participants undertook a diagnostic interview and completed self-report measures. Study I compared BP vs BPD across clinical variables; Study II compared emotional dysregulation between BP vs BPD vs comorbid BP/BPD; and Study III compared clinical vs DSM diagnoses of the three diagnostic categories. Results: Study I found predictors of BPD status (as against BP) varied according to diagnostic decisions, with the most consistent items being childhood sexual abuse, childhood depersonalization, personality variables relating to relationship difficulties and sensitivity to criticism, and the absence of a BP family history. Study II found greatest impairment in emotion regulation strategies in the comorbid group followed by the BPD and then the BP groups. Adaptive emotion regulation strategies were superior in the bipolar group, without significant differences between the comorbid and BPD groups. Study III found clinician vs DSM concordance rates were reduced as BP disorder duration criteria were relaxed, with discordance mainly arising from clinical allocation of a BP disorder for those DSM assigned as having unipolar depression. Rates of BPD allocation varied marginally, with discordance mostly arising from those so clinically diagnosed receiving a comorbid BP/BPD DSM diagnosis. DSM overestimated their comorbid prevalence compared to clinician diagnoses. Not imposing the minimum DSM duration criteria for BP hypo/mania did not increase the prevalence of misdiagnosing BPD. Conclusions: Findings reveal that using the identified clinical features, BPD can be differentiated from BP with a high degree of accuracy and those with BP, BPD and comorbid BP/BPD show differing patterns of emotion regulation. Differing prevalence estimates and reasons for discordant DSM and clinician diagnoses should assist clinical decision-making

Subcutaneous ketamine infusion in palliative patients for major depressive disorder (SKIPMDD)—Phase II single-arm open-label feasibility study

Background: Ketamine at subanaesthetic dosages (�0.5mg/kg) exhibits rapid onset (over hours to days) antidepressant effects against major depressive disorder in people who are otherwise well. However, its safety, tolerability and efficacy are not known for major depressive disorder in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses. Objective: To determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability, acceptability and any antidepressant signal/ activity to justify and inform a fully powered study of subcutaneous ketamine infusions for major depressive disorder in the palliative setting. Methods: This was a single arm, open-label, phase II feasibility study (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number—ACTRN12618001586202). We recruited adults (� 18-years-old) with advanced life-limiting illnesses referred to four palliative care services in Sydney, Australia, diagnosed with major depressive disorder from any care setting. Participants received weekly subcutaneous ketamine infusion (0.1–0.4mg/kg) over two hours using individual dose-titration design. Outcomes assessed were feasibility, safety, tolerability and antidepressant activity. Results: Out of ninety-nine referrals, ten participants received ketamine and were analysed for responses. Accrual rate was 0.54 participants/month across sites with 50% of treated participants achieving � 50% reduction in baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, meeting feasibility criteria set a priori. There were no clinically relevant harms encountered. Conclusions: A future definitive trial exploring the effectiveness of subcutaneous infusion of ketamine for major depressive disorder in the palliative care setting may be feasible by addressing identified study barriers. Individual dose-titration of subcutaneous ketamine infusions over two hours from 0.1mg/kg can be well-tolerated and appears to produce transient antidepressant signals over hours to days