Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Background Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) having active suicidal ideation with intent require immediate treatment. Methods This double-blind study (ASPIRE II) randomized adults (aged 18–64 years) with MDD having active suicidal ideation with intent to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks, given with comprehensive standard of care (hospitalization ≥5 days and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s]). Change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score (primary efficacy endpoint) was analyzed using ANCOVA. Clinical Global Impression–Severity of Suicidality–revised (key secondary endpoint) was analyzed using ANCOVA on ranks of change. Results Of 230 patients who were randomized (115 per arm), 227 received study drug and were included in efficacy/safety analyses; 184 (80.0%) completed double-blind treatment. Greater improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score was observed with esketamine (mean [SD]: –15.7 [11.56]) vs placebo (–12.4 [10.43]), each with standard of care, at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference [SE]: –3.9 [1.39], 95% CI: –6.60, –1.11; 2-sided P = .006). This was also noted at the earlier (4-hour) timepoint (least-squares mean difference –4.2, 95% CI: –6.38, –1.94). Patients in both treatment groups experienced rapid reduction in Clinical Global Impression–Severity of Suicidality–revised score; the between-group difference was not statistically significant. The most common adverse events among esketamine-treated patients were dizziness, dissociation, nausea, dysgeusia, somnolence, headache, and paresthesia. Conclusion This study confirmed rapid and robust reduction of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray in severely ill patients with MDD who have active suicidal ideation with intent. Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03097133

Background Esketamine (ESK) nasal spray, taken with oral antidepressant therapy, is approved for the treatment of depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In pooled analyses of two pivotal phase 3 studies, ASPIRE I and II, remission rates were consistently higher among patients with MDD with active suicidality who were treated with ESK + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo (PBO) + SOC at all time points in the double-blind and most time points in the follow-up phases. The current analysis of the ASPIRE data sets assessed the effect of ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC on additional remission-related endpoints: time to achieving remission and consistent remission, proportion of patients in remission and consistent remission, and days in remission. Methods Post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and II ( N  = 451). Remission and consistent remission were defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤ 12 at any given visit or two consecutive visits, respectively. Combined endpoints utilizing Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised version [CGI-SS-r] ≤ 1 (i.e., not suicidal/questionably suicidal) along with the remission and consistent remission definitions (i.e., MADRS total score ≤ 12) were also examined. Results The median times to remission and consistent remission of MDD were significantly shorter in ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC (15 versus 23 [ p  = 0.005] and 23 versus 50 days [ p  = 0.007], respectively) and a greater proportion of patients in ESK + SOC achieved remission and consistent remission by Day 25 (65.2% versus 55.5% and 54.2% versus 39.8%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the combined endpoint for both remission definitions. The median percent of days in remission during the double-blind treatment phase was significantly greater in ESK + SOC (27.1% or 5 days) versus PBO + SOC (8.3% or 2 days; p  = 0.006), and the significant difference was maintained during follow-up. Conclusion Treatment with ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC resulted in significantly shorter time to remission, greater proportion of patients in remission, and greater percent of days in remission using increasingly rigorous definitions of remission. These findings underscore the clinical benefits of ESK for adults with MDD with suicidality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT03039192 (registered February 1, 2017) and NCT03097133 (registered March 31, 2017).

To assess the likelihood of attaining response/remission of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus standard of care (SoC) vs placebo nasal spray (PBO) plus SoC at 4 weeks in patients with major depressive disorder and active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI) without early response. A post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II evaluated ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC in adults with MDSI without response (≥50% improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score) at 24 hours after the first dose or at week 1 after the first two doses (ie, 24-hour and week 1 nonresponders). Response and remission (MADRS score ≤ 12) rates were assessed on day 25. The analysis included 362 patients (n = 182, ESK plus SoC; n = 180, PBO plus SoC). Among 24-hour nonresponders, more patients receiving ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC achieved response (63.9% vs 48.0%, = .010) and remission (35.1% vs 24.4%, = .074) at day 25. Odds of response/remission were higher with ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC (response: 1.89, 95% CI, 1.17-3.05; remission: 1.48, 95% CI, 0.93-2.35). Similar findings were observed among week 1 nonresponders for response (48.4% vs 34.5%, = .075), remission (25.0% vs 13.1%, = .060), and odds of response/remission (response: 2.03, 95% CI, 1.22-3.40; remission: 1.63, 95% CI, 1.01-2.62). Patients with MDSI not responding within the first week of treatment with ESK plus SoC may still benefit from a full 4-week treatment course.

In this randomized trial, esketamine nasal spray plus an SSRI or SNRI was superior to quetiapine plus an SSRI or SNRI with respect to remission at week 8 in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Purpose: The impact of benzodiazepines on the efficacy and safety of esketamine as a rapid-acting antidepressant remains unclear. Materials and Methods: Data from two identically designed, randomized double-blind studies were pooled and analyzed on a post-hoc basis. In both studies, adults with major depressive disorder with acute suicidal ideation or behavior were randomized to placebo or esketamine 84 mg nasal spray twice-weekly for 4 weeks, each with comprehensive standard-ofcare (initial hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s]). Efficacy and safety were analyzed in two groups based on whether patients used concomitant benzodiazepines, which were prohibited within 8 hours before and 4 hours after the first dose of esketamine and within 8 hours of the primary efficacy assessment at 24 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint--change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score--was analyzed using ANCOVA. Results: Most patients (309/451, 68.5%) used concomitant benzodiazepines. Greater decrease in MADRS total score was observed with esketamine (mean [SD]: -16.1 [11.73]) versus placebo (-12.6 [10.56]) at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference: -3.7, 95% CI: -5.76, -1.59). The differences between the esketamine and placebo groups were clinically meaningful, irrespective of benzodiazepine use (benzodiazepine: -4.3 [-6.63, -1.89]; no benzodiazepine: -3.1 [-6.62, 0.45]). Among patients taking esketamine, change in MADRS total score was not significantly different between patients taking benzodiazepines (-15.8 [11.27]) versus those not taking benzodiazepines (-16.8 [12.82]) (least-squares mean difference: 1.1, [-2.24, 4.45]). Among esketamine-treated patients, the incidence of sedation was higher with benzodiazepine use, whereas dissociation was similar. Conclusion: Benzodiazepines do not meaningfully affect the rapid-acting antidepressant effect of esketamine at 24 hours post-first dose among patients with MDD and acute suicidal ideation or behavior. Keywords: esketamine, benzodiazepine, depression, suicidal ideation, rapid-acting

Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have higher rates of relapse and pronounced decreases in daily functioning and health-related quality of life compared to patients with major depressive disorder who are not treatment-resistant, underscoring the need for treatment choices with sustained efficacy and long-term tolerability. Adults with TRD who participated in ≥1 of 6 phase 3 “parent” studies could continue esketamine treatment, combined with an oral antidepressant, by enrolling in phase 3, open-label, long-term extension study, SUSTAIN-3. Based on their status at parent-study end, eligible participants entered a 4-week induction phase followed by an optimization/maintenance phase, or directly entered the optimization/maintenance phase of SUSTAIN-3. Intranasal esketamine dosing was flexible, twice-weekly during induction and individualized to depression severity during optimization/maintenance. At the interim data cutoff (01 December 2020), 1148 participants were enrolled, 458 at induction and 690 at optimization/maintenance. Mean (median) cumulative duration of maintenance esketamine treatment was 31.5 (37.7) months (totaling 2769 cumulative patient-years). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥20%) were headache, dizziness, nausea, dissociation, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. Mean Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score decreased during induction, and this reduction persisted during optimization/maintenance (mean [SD] change from the baseline to the endpoint of each phase: induction −12.8 [9.73]; optimization/maintenance +1.1 [9.93]), with 35.6% and 46.1% of participants in remission (MADRS total score ≤12) at induction and optimization/maintenance endpoints, respectively. Improvement in depression ratings generally persisted among participants who remained in maintenance treatment, and no new safety signal was identified during long-term treatment (up to 4.5 years) using intermittent-dosed esketamine in conjunction with daily antidepressant.

This Phase 3, multicenter study (NCT03434041) was conducted in primarily Chinese patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) to support the registration of esketamine nasal spray in China. This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study was conducted in China and the United States (US) in patients with TRD (single or recurrent episode). Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intranasal esketamine or matching placebo, each in conjunction with a newly initiated oral antidepressant (AD; duloxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, and venlafaxine extended release) (ie, esketamine plus AD or AD plus placebo). The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at Day 28, was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary endpoints including safety were also evaluated. Of 252 randomized patients (China, 224; US, 28), 214 completed the double-blind treatment phase. The difference between treatment groups at Day 28 was not statistically significant (difference in least-square means [95% CI]: -2.0 [-4.64, 0.55]; 2-sided p = 0.123). However, esketamine plus AD demonstrated a clinically meaningful treatment difference compared with AD plus placebo in MADRS total score at 24 hours after first dose for the study overall population and China sub-population (difference in least-square mean [95% CI]: -3.3 [-5.33, -1.33] and -2.6 [-4.64, -0.60], respectively). No new safety signals were observed. Esketamine plus AD was not statistically superior to AD plus placebo in improving depressive symptoms in TRD patients at Day 28. Rapid reduction in depressive symptoms within 24 hours was observed for TRD patients treated with esketamine plus AD in the overall population and China sub-population. Safety was consistent with the established safety profile of esketamine.

Purpose To assess the effect of esketamine nasal spray on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with major depressive disorder having active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI). Methods Patient-level data from two phase 3 studies (ASPIRE I; ASPIRE II) of esketamine + standard of care (SOC) in patients (aged 18–64 years) with MDSI, were pooled. PROs were evaluated from baseline through end of the double-blind treatment phase (day 25). Outcome assessments included: Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Quality of Life (QoL) in Depression Scale (QLDS), European QoL Group-5-Dimension-5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and 9-item Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). Changes in BHS and QLDS scores (baseline to day 25) were analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Results Pooled data for esketamine + SOC (n = 226; mean age: 40.5 years, 59.3% females) and placebo + SOC (n = 225; mean age: 39.6 years, 62.2% females) were analyzed. Mean ± SD change from baseline to day 25, esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC (least-square mean difference [95% CI] based on MMRM): BHS total score, − 7.4 ± 6.7 vs − 6.8 ± 6.5 [− 1.0 (− 2.23, 0.21)]; QLDS score, − 14.4 ± 11.5 vs − 12.2 ± 10.8 [− 3.1 (− 5.21, − 1.02)]. Relative risk (95% CI) of reporting perceived problems (slight to extreme) in EQ-5D-5L dimensions (day 25) in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC: mobility [0.78 (0.50, 1.20)], self-care [0.83 (0.55, 1.27)], usual activities [0.87 (0.72, 1.05)], pain/discomfort [0.85 (0.69, 1.04)], and anxiety/depression [0.90 (0.80, 1.00)]. Mean ± SD changes from baseline in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC for health status index: 0.23 ± 0.21 vs 0.19 ± 0.22; and for EQ-Visual Analogue Scale: 24.0 ± 27.2 vs 19.3 ± 24.4. At day 25, mean ± SD in domains of TSQM-9 scores in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC were: effectiveness, 67.2 ± 25.3 vs 56.2 ± 26.8; global satisfaction, 69.9 ± 25.2 vs 56.3 ± 27.8; and convenience, 74.0 ± 19.4 vs 75.4 ± 18.7. Conclusion These PRO data support the patient perspective of the effect associated with esketamine + SOC in improving health-related QoL in patients with MDSI. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: ASPIRE I, NCT03039192 (Registration date: February 1, 2017); ASPIRE II, NCT03097133 (Registration date: March 31, 2017).

Background Increasing availability and use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics have generated a need to compare these formulations with their oral equivalents; however, a paucity of relevant data is available. Methods This post hoc comparison of the long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of maintenance treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral paliperidone extended release (ER) used data from two similarly designed, randomised, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled schizophrenia relapse prevention trials. Assessments included measures of time to relapse, symptom changes/functioning and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Time to relapse between treatment groups was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Between-group differences for continuous variables for change scores during the DB phase were assessed using analysis of co-variance models. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. Results Approximately 45% of enrolled subjects in both trials were stabilised and randomised to the DB relapse prevention phase. Risk of relapse was higher in subjects treated with paliperidone ER than in those treated with PP [paliperidone ER/PP hazard ratio (HR), 2.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46–4.35; p < 0.001]. Similarly, risk of relapse after withdrawal of paliperidone ER treatment (placebo group of the paliperidone ER study) was higher than after withdrawal of PP (paliperidone ER placebo/PP placebo HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.59–3.18; p < 0.001). Stabilised schizophrenic subjects treated with PP maintained functioning demonstrated by the same proportions of subjects with mild to no difficulties in functioning at DB baseline and end point [Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale total score >70, both approximately 58.5%; p = 1.000] compared with a 10.9% decrease for paliperidone ER (58.5% vs 47.6%, respectively; p = 0.048). The least squares mean change for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at DB end point in these previously stabilised subjects was 3.5 points in favour of PP (6.0 vs 2.5; p = 0.025). The rates of TEAEs and AEs of interest appeared similar. Conclusions This analysis supports maintenance of effect with the injectable compared with the oral formulation of paliperidone in patients with schizophrenia. The safety profile of PP was similar to that of paliperidone ER. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.