Evidence Hub

Real‐World Effectiveness and Cost‐Differential of Intranasal Esketamine Versus Intramuscular Ketamine

Kush V. Bhatt, Tara A. Austin, Danny Alam, Jason Compton, Em Ellerman-Tayag, Gabrielle Awodele, J. Boerth, Dimitri Periviliotis et al.

Psychiatric Research and Clinical Practice, 2026

90 participants

Abstract

Objective This study evaluated whether intramuscular (IM) ketamine is non‐inferior to intranasal (IN) esketamine for treatment‐resistant depression (TRD) and assessed differences in safety and healthcare costs. Methods In a retrospective, observational sequential cohort at the VA San Diego, 179 Veterans with TRD received eight treatments of either IN esketamine (n = 89) or IM ketamine (n = 90). The primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms (PHQ‐9) analyzed via linear mixed‐effects models with a non‐inferiority margin of −1.25 points. Secondary outcomes included Post‐Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist for DSM‐5 symptoms, adverse events, and a cost‐difference analysis. Results IM ketamine was non‐inferior to IN esketamine for depression, with a baseline‐adjusted estimated marginal mean PHQ‐9 difference of 0.04 points (95% CI: −1.21 to 1.29). Reductions in PTSD symptoms were also non‐inferior. Incidence of sentinel adverse events were comparable, with no significant differences in emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Cost analysis revealed a significant disparity: the total cost per eight‐treatment course was $6069 for IN esketamine versus $647 for IM ketamine, with this difference driven primarily by the cost of IN esketamine. Conclusions IM ketamine demonstrated comparable clinical effectiveness and safety to FDA‐approved IN esketamine while offering a significant reduction in cost. These findings suggest IM ketamine may be a high‐value alternative…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 90 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