SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Ketamine, Esketamine, and Arketamine: Their Mechanisms of Action and Applications in the Treatment of Depression and Alleviation of Depressive Symptoms.

Biomedicines · 2024-10-09

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12102283PMID: 39457596

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Research over the past years has compared the enantiomers (S)-ketamine (esketamine) and (R)-ketamine (arketamine) of the previously known racemic mixture called ketamine (R/S-ketamine). Esketamine has been found to be more potent, offering three times stronger analgesic effects and 1.5 times greater anesthetic efficacy than arketamine. It provides smoother anesthesia with fewer side effects and is widely used in clinical settings due to its neuroprotective, bronchodilatory, and antiepileptic properties. Approved by the FDA and EMA in 2019, esketamine is currently used alongside SSRIs or SNRIs for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). On the other hand, arketamine has shown potential for treating neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and multiple sclerosis, offering possible antidepressant effects and anti-inflammatory benefits. While esketamine is already in clinical use, arketamine's future depends on further research to address its safety, efficacy, and optimal dosing. Both enantiomers hold significant clinical value, with esketamine excelling in anesthesia, and arketamine showing promise in neurological and psychiatric treatments.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.