Efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray by sex in patients with treatment-resistant depression: findings from short-term randomized, controlled trials

The objective of this analysis was to determine if there are sex differences with esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Post hoc analyses of three randomized, controlled studies of esketamine in patients with TRD (TRANSFORM-1, TRANSFORM-2 [18–64 years], TRANSFORM-3 [≥ 65 years]) were performed. In each 4-week study, adults with TRD were randomized to esketamine or placebo nasal spray, each with a newly initiated oral antidepressant. Change from baseline to day 28 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was assessed by sex in pooled data from TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 and separately in data from TRANSFORM-3 using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Use of hormonal therapy was assessed in all women, and menopausal status was assessed in women in TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2. Altogether, 702 adults (464 women) received ≥ 1 dose of intranasal study drug and antidepressant. Mean MADRS total score (SD) decreased from baseline to day 28, more so among patients treated with esketamine/antidepressant vs. antidepressant/placebo in both women and men: TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 women—esketamine/antidepressant -20.3 (13.19) vs. antidepressant/placebo -15.8 (14.67), men—esketamine/antidepressant -18.3 (14.08) vs. antidepressant/placebo -16.0 (14.30); TRANSFORM-3 women—esketamine/antidepressant -9.9 (13.34) vs. antidepressant/placebo -6.9 (9.65), men—esketamine/antidepressant -10.3 (11.96) vs. antidepressant/placebo -5.5 (7.64). There was no significant sex effect or treatment-by-sex interaction (p > 0.35). The most common adverse events in esketamine-treated patients were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, and vertigo, each reported at a rate higher in women than men. The analyses support antidepressant efficacy and overall safety of esketamine nasal spray are similar between women and men with TRD. The TRANSFORM studies are registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifiers: NCT02417064 (first posted 15 April 2015; last updated 4 May 2020), NCT02418585 (first posted 16 April 2015; last updated 2 June 2020), and NCT02422186 (first posted 21 April 2015; last updated 29 September 2021)).

Efficacy and safety of fixed doses of intranasal Esketamine as an add-on therapy to Oral antidepressants in Japanese patients with treatment-resistant depression: a phase 2b randomized clinical study

Background Esketamine nasal spray (Spravato) in conjunction with oral antidepressants (ADs) is approved in the European Union, United States, and other markets for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of esketamine nasal spray in Japanese patients with TRD needs to be assessed. Methods This Phase 2b, randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled study was conducted in adult Japanese patients with TRD meeting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fifth edition) criteria of major depressive disorder with nonresponse to ≥ 1 but < 5 different ADs in the current episode at screening. Patients were treated with a new oral AD for 6 weeks (prospective lead-in phase); nonresponders were randomized (2:1:1:1) to placebo or esketamine (28-, 56-, or 84-mg) nasal spray along with the continued use of AD for 4 weeks (DB induction phase). Responders (≥50% reduction from baseline in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score) from the DB induction phase continued into the 24-week posttreatment phase and patients who relapsed could participate in a 4-week open-label (OL) second induction (flexibly-dosed esketamine). The primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline in the MADRS total score at Day 28 in the DB induction phase, was based on mixed-effects model using repeated measures pairwise comparisons using a Dunnett adjustment. Results Of the 202 patients randomized in the DB induction phase (esketamine [n = 122] or placebo [n = 80]), the MADRS total scores decreased from baseline to Day 28 of the DB induction phase (− 15.2, − 14.5, − 15.1, and − 15.3 for esketamine 28 mg, 56 mg, 84 mg, and placebo groups, respectively), indicating an improvement in depressive symptoms; however, the difference between the esketamine and placebo groups was not statistically significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events during the DB induction phase in the combined esketamine group (incidences ranging from 12.3 to 41.0%) were blood pressure increased, dissociation, dizziness, somnolence, nausea, hypoaesthesia, vertigo, and headache; the incidence of each of these events was > 2-fold higher than the corresponding incidence in the placebo group. Conclusions Efficacy of esketamine plus oral AD in Japanese TRD patients was not established; further investigation is warranted. All esketamine doses were safe and tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02918318. Registered: 28 September 2016.

Evaluation of MADRS Severity Thresholds in Patients With Bipolar Depression

IntroductionThe Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is commonly used for the assessment of depressive symptom changes in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar depression. Categories of depression severity that correspond to ranges of MADRS total score have been previously reported in patients with MDD, but it appears that MADRS severity ranges have not been reported for patients with bipolar I disorder. The objective of this study was to evaluate MADRS total score ranges that correspond with different grades of depression severity in patients with bipolar I depression.MethodsData were pooled from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6- or 8-week trials of cariprazine in patients with bipolar I depression. MADRS severity ranges were evaluated using an anchor-based approach with the clinician-rated, 7-category Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. CGI-S has previously been used to determine severity thresholds in MDD. Correlations between MADRS total score and CGI-S score were assessed in the pooled dataset at week 6; placebo and active treatment arms were pooled together. Youden index from receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves was used to determine the optimal threshold for MADRS total score corresponding to each CGI-S severity level.ResultsThe pooled dataset included 1523 patients with bipolar depression. Mean CGI-S scores were highly correlated with mean MADRS total scores at week 6 (r=.87; P<.0001), with MADRS total scores increasing with CGI-S severity. Using the ROC curves, MADRS total score ranges corresponding to each CGI-S severity category were estimated as follows: score of 0-6 for “normal, not at all ill”, 7-12 for “borderline mentally ill”, 13-18 for “mildly ill”, 19-23 for “moderately ill”, 24-36 for “markedly ill”, 37-39 for “severely ill”, and 40 or greater for “extremely ill”. Area under the curve (AUC) values for these cutoffs ranged from 0.930 to 0.997, representing outstanding sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionsUtilizing data from 3 recent clinical trials of subjects with bipolar depression, we were able to identify MADRS severity thresholds. These empirical findings may help clinicians to understand and contextualize MADRS results from bipolar clinical research and apply to their patients in practice.FundingAbbVie Inc.

Lumateperone (ITI−007) in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial

Study ObjectiveApproved treatments for bipolar depression are limited and associated with a spectrum of undesirable side effects. Lumateperone (lumateperone tosylate, ITI−007), a mechanistically novel antipsychotic that simultaneously modulates serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate neurotransmission, is FDA-approved for the treatment of schizophrenia. Lumateperone is currently being investigated for the treatment of bipolar depression (major depressive episodes [MDE] associated with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder). This Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled multinational study (NCT03249376) investigated the efficacy and safety of lumateperone in patients with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder experiencing a MDE.MethodPatients (18 75 years) with a clinical diagnosis of bipolar I or bipolar II disorder who were experiencing a MDE (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] Total score =20 and a Clinical Global Impression Scale-Bipolar Version-Severity [CGI-BP-S] score =4 at screening and baseline) were randomized to lumateperone 42mg or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints were change from baseline to Day 43 in MADRS total score and CGI-BP-S scores, respectively. Secondary efficacy outcomes included response (MADRS improvement = 50%) and remission (MADRS total score =12) at Day 43. Safety assessments included treatment emergent adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and suicidality.ResultsIn this study, 377 patients received treatment (placebo, n=189; lumateperone 42mg, n=188) and 333 completed treatment. Patients in the lumateperone 42-mg group had significantly greater mean improvement on MADRS total score change from baseline to Day 43 compared with placebo (least squares mean difference [LSMD]=-4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-6.34, −2.83; effect size vs placebo [ES]=-0.56; P<.0001). Lumateperone treatment was associated with significant MADRS improvement in both patients with bipolar I (LSMD=-4.0; 95% CI=-5.92, −1.99; ES=-0.49; P<.0001) and bipolar II (LSMD=-7.0; 95% CI=-10.92, −3.16; ES=-0.81; P=.0004). The lumateperone 42-mg group also had significantly greater mean improvement in CGI-BP-S total score compared with placebo (LSMD=-0.9; 95% CI=-1.37, −0.51; ES=-0.46; P<.001). Lumateperone compared with placebo had significantly greater MADRS response rate (51.1% vs 36.7%; odds ratio=2.98; P<.001) and remission rates (P=.02) at Day 43. Lumateperone treatment was well tolerated, with minimal risk of EPS, metabolic, and prolactin side effects.ConclusionsLumateperone 42 mg significantly improved depression symptoms in both patients with bipolar I and bipolar II depression. Lumateperone was generally well tolerated. These results suggest that lumateperone 42 mg may be a promising new treatment for bipolar depression associated with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder.FundingIntra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.

Cariprazine efficacy in bipolar I depression with and without concurrent manic symptoms: post hoc analysis of 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies

Objective.Mixed presentations, defined by simultaneous occurrence of depressive and manic symptoms, are difficult to treat. Antidepressants, although commonly used, have weak evidence of efficacy and may increase risk of mood destabilization. The aim of this pooled post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of cariprazine in the treatment of bipolar depression with or without concurrent manic symptoms.Methods.Patients from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies who met DSM-IV-TR or DSM-5 criteria for bipolar I disorder with a current major depressive episode were identified to have concurrent manic symptoms by baseline Young Mania Rating Scale total score ≥4. Efficacy was assessed in cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/day dose groups versus placebo; analyses included the least squares mean change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score.Results.Of 1383 patients randomized to treatment, 808 (58.4%) had concurrent manic symptoms. For patients with manic symptoms, mean reduction in MADRS total score from baseline to week 6 was significantly greater for both cariprazine 1.5 and 3 mg/day compared with placebo, with least squares mean differences (LSMDs) versus placebo of −2.5 (p = .0033) and −2.9 (p = .0010), respectively; for patients without manic symptoms, the LSMD was significant for 1.5 mg/day (−3.3; p = .0008), but not for 3 mg/day (−1.9; p = .0562).Conclusion.The results of this post hoc analysis suggest that cariprazine may be an appropriate treatment option for patients with bipolar I depression with or without manic symptoms, with higher doses potentially more effective in patients with manic symptoms.

A randomised, placebo-controlled 24-week study evaluating adjunctive brexpiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder

ObjectiveTo evaluate brexpiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapies (ADTs) as maintenance treatment in patients with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to ADT, utilising a novel study design.MethodsThe study comprised an 8-week prospective treatment period with open-label ADT with double-blind placebo treatment and a 24-week randomised treatment period. Investigators and patients were blinded to treatment periods, randomisation criteria, and timing of randomisation. Patients with early response to open-label ADT were withdrawn at Week 6. Patients fulfilling criteria for inadequate response were randomised to ADT+brexpiprazole 1–3 mg/day, or ADT+placebo. The primary endpoint was full remission: Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤10 and ≥50% decrease from randomisation (i.e. baseline) in MADRS total score for at least 8 consecutive weeks.ResultsThe primary efficacy analysis failed to show a statistically significant difference between the proportions of patients on ADT+brexpiprazole (21.4%) and ADT+placebo (24.9%) achieving full remission; odds ratio: 0.83; p=0.2641. The secondary endpoint of change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score showed no difference between ADT+brexpiprazole and ADT+placebo (−0.4; p=0.3259). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in patients receiving ADT+brexpiprazole was weight increased (9.5% vs. 5.0% in ADT+placebo). The incidence of TEAEs leading to withdrawal in the randomised treatment period was 6.3% in the ADT+brexpiprazole group and 3.4% in the ADT+placebo group.ConclusionAdjunctive brexpiprazole did not differentiate from ADT+placebo on the primary endpoint of full remission. A number of design elements in this previously untried study design may have contributed to the study result. Brexpiprazole was well tolerated.

123 Adjunctive Brexpiprazole in Patients With MDD and Symptoms of Anxiety: Results From Post-Hoc Analyses of Three Placebo-Controlled Studies

Study objectivesSymptoms of anxiety are prevalent in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and are associated with greater illness severity, suicidality, impaired functioning and poor response to antidepressant treatment (ADT). In MDD, anxiety symptoms can be assessed as ‘anxious distress’ (new DSM-5 specifier) or ‘anxious depression’ (score ≥7 on the HAM-D anxiety/somatization factor). Brexpiprazole is a serotonin–dopamine activity modulator that is a partial agonist at 5-HT1A and dopamine D2 receptors, and an antagonist at 5-HT2A and noradrenaline alpha1B/2C receptors – all at similar potency. Brexpiprazole is approved in the US for treatment ofschizophrenia, and as adjunctive treatment in MDD. The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to assess the efficacy of brexpiprazole as adjunct to ADT in patients with MDDand anxiety symptoms, using these two definitions of anxiety.MethodsData were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with similar designs (Pyxis – NCT01360645; Polaris – NCT01360632; Sirius – NCT02196506). In each study, patients with MDD and an inadequate response to 1–3 ADTs received single-blind ADT for 8 weeks. Patients with inadequate response throughout this prospective phase were randomized to receive either ADT+brexpiprazole (2mg in Pyxis and Sirius; 1mg or 3 mg in Polaris) or ADT+placebo for 6 weeks. Proxies used to categorize patients as having ‘anxious distress’ included a score of ≥2 on the following symptoms at randomization: tension (MADRS item 3 score ≥3); restlessness (IDS item 24 score ≥2); concentration (MADRS item 6 score ≥3); or apprehension (HAM-D item 10 score ≥3). Scores on the items of the HAM-D anxiety/somatization factor at randomization (baseline) were used to identify patients with ‘anxious depression’. Efficacy was assessed as the change in MADRS total score from baseline to Week 6. Statistical analysis used a Mixed Model Repeated Measure approach using pooled brexpiprazole doses.ResultsAfter 8 weeks of prospective ADT monotherapy, 57.6% (n=797/1,383) of patients met the criteria for anxious distress, and 48.5% (n=671/1,383) for anxious depression. The mean MADRS total score was 29.0 for patients with anxious distress in the adjunctive brexpiprazole (n=462) group and 29.1 in the placebo (n=327) group; while those with anxious depression were 28.9 (brexpiprazole; n=384) and 28.6 (placebo; n=282). Compared to those receiving placebo, patients with both anxious distress and anxious depression who received adjunctive brexpiprazole showed a greater improvement in MADRS total score (LS mean difference -2.38, p=0.0001 and -1.68, p=0.012, respectively). These improvements, compared to placebo, were similar to those in patients who had not met the criteria for anxious distress (-1.40, p=0.023) or anxious depression (-2.17, p<0.001).ConclusionAdjunctive brexpiprazole may be efficacious in reducing depressive symptoms both in patients with or without symptoms of anxiety.Funding AcknowledgementsThe studies were funded by H. Lundbeck A/S and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc.

Prescribing patterns of psychiatric drugs in major depressive disorder – Findings from a large European multicenter, cross-sectional study

IntroductionThe multicenter, cross-sectional survey summarizes the current prescription patterns of psychopharmacological medications in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated in European university psychiatric centers.MethodsThe study included a total of 1181 MDD patients who were recruited in 9 academic sites across 8 European countries. Socio-demographic, clinical, and psychopharmacological characteristics were collected within a detailed clinical interview and the current depressive symptom severity was measured by the Montgomery and Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Symptom reduction during the present MDD episode was analyzed by calculating retrospective MADRS scores. Descriptive statistics, analyses of variance (ANOVAs), and Spearman correlation analyses were performed to examine the impact of various features on the applied pharmacological strategies.ResultsRegarding first-line antidepressant medication, the most frequently prescribed drug classes were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) (53.4%), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) (23.6%), noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs) (8.2%), tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) (5.1%), and the melatonergic antidepressant agomelatine (5.0%). The most commonly used individual antidepressants were escitalopram (18.4%), venlafaxine (15.2%), sertraline (12.9%), paroxetine (9.1%), mirtazapine (8.2%), duloxetine (7.0%), and fluoxetine (6.5%). Among the patients, 59.4% were treated with polypsychopharmaceutical medications (mean: 2 drugs) and for the number of individual drugs, we found a significant correlation with the present MADRS total score and the MADRS total score change during the current depressive episode.ConclusionConsistent with surveys investigating primarily municipal psychiatric treatment centers, we could replicate the observation that SSRIs are the most commonly used antidepressants in MDD for the first time for European university centers.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Lurasidone for major depressive disorder with mixed features and anxiety: a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled study

ObjectiveThe aim of this post-hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of lurasidone in treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with mixed features who present with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety.MethodsThe data in this analysis were derived from a study of patients meeting the DSM–IV–TR criteria for unipolar MDD, with a Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥26, presenting with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms, who were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone 20–60 mg/day (n=109) or placebo (n=100). Anxiety severity was evaluated using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM–A). To evaluate the effect of baseline anxiety on response to lurasidone, the following two anxiety groups were defined: mild anxiety (HAM–A≤14) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (HAM–A≥15). Change from baseline in MADRS total score was analyzed for each group using a mixed model for repeated measures.ResultsTreatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in MADRS total score for patients with both mild anxiety (–18.4 vs. –12.8, p<0.01, effect size [ES]=0.59) and moderate-to-severe anxiety (–22.0 vs. –13.0, p<0.001, ES=0.95). Treatment with lurasidone was associated with a significant week 6 change versus placebo in HAM–A total score for patients with both mild anxiety (–7.6 vs. –4.0, p<0.01, ES=0.62), and moderate-to-severe anxiety (–11.4 vs. –6.1, p<0.0001, ES=0.91).ConclusionsIn this post-hoc analysis of an MDD with mixed features and anxiety population, treatment with lurasidone was associated with significant improvement in both depressive and anxiety symptoms in subgroups with mild and moderate-to-severe levels of anxiety at baseline.

Efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder whose symptoms worsened with antidepressant monotherapy

IntroductionEfficacy of depression treatments, including adjunctive antipsychotic treatment, has not been explored for patients with worsening symptoms after antidepressant therapy (ADT).MethodsThis post-hoc analysis utilized pooled data from 3 similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adjunctive aripiprazole in patients with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to ADT. The studies had 2 phases: an 8-week prospective ADT phase and 6-week adjunctive (aripiprazole or placebo) treatment phase. This analysis focused on patients whose symptoms worsened during the prospective 8-week ADT phase (worsening defined as >0% increase in Montgomery–Åsberg Depressive Rating Scale [MADRS] Total score). During the 6-week, double-blind, adjunctive phase, response was defined as ≥50% reduction in MADRS Total score and remission as ≥50% reduction in MADRS Total score and MADRS score ≤10.ResultsOf 1065 patients who failed to achieve a response during the prospective phase, 160 exhibited worsening of symptoms (ADT-Worseners), and 905 exhibited no change/reduction in MADRS scores (ADT-Non-worseners). Response rates for ADT-Worseners at endpoint were 36.6% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 22.5% (placebo). Similarly, response rates at endpoint for ADT-Non-worseners were 37.5% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 22.5% (placebo). Remission rates at endpoint for ADT-Worseners were 25.4% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 12.4% (placebo). For ADT-Non-worseners, remission rates were 29.9% (adjunctive aripiprazole) and 17.4% (placebo).ConclusionThese results suggest that adjunctive aripiprazole is an effective intervention for patients whose symptoms worsen during antidepressant monotherapy. The results challenge the view that benefits of adjunctive therapy with aripiprazole are limited to partial responders to ADT.