Evidence Hub

Patient preference effects in a randomized comparative effectiveness study of electroconvulsive therapy and ketamine for treatment resistant depression: An ELEKT-D trial secondary analysis

Gerard Sanacora, Brian S. Barnett, Bo Hu, Fernando S. Goes, Sanjay J. Mathew, J. Murrough, Irving Reti, Samuel T. Wilkinson et al.

Psychiatry Research, 2025

255 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have shown patient preference can have large effects on treatment adherence and patient satisfaction. However, the direct effects of matching treatment with patient preference on efficacy and safety outcomes remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the effects of patient preference and preference-matching on efficacy, adverse events, and adherence to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and intravenous (IV) ketamine treatments in a randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Data were collected during the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded ECT vs. Ketamine in Patients with Treatment Resistant Depression (ELEKT-D) study, which randomized patients to treatment with either ECT or IV ketamine across five U.S. sites. We performed post hoc-analyses on 255 patients who provided responses to a patient preference survey following treatment phase completion, which allowed us to explore the relationships between treatment preference and several treatment outcome measures.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed that (1) Ketamine was preferred by more trial participants than ECT; (2) Preference for ketamine was associated with higher likelihood of treatment response for all patients regardless of treatment assignment; (3) Preference-matching (patients receiving the treatment they indicated a moderate or strong preference for on the survey) was associated with greater likelihood of treatment response to ketamine but not ECT; (4) Preference-matching was associated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 255 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free