Benefit-Risk Assessment of Esketamine Nasal Spray vs. Placebo in Treatment-Resistant Depression.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Katz EG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7894501 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Benefit-Risk Assessment of Esketamine Nasal Spray vs. Placebo in Treatment-Resistant Depression.
Katz Eva G EG Hough David D Doherty Teodora T Lane Rosanne R Singh Jaskaran J Levitan Bennett B
Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 20201013 2
This post hoc analysis assessed the benefit-risk profile of esketamine nasal spray + oral antidepressant (AD) induction and maintenance treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The Benefit-Risk Action Team framework was utilized to assess the benefit-risk profile using data from three induction studies and one maintenance study. Benefits were proportion of remitters or responders in induction studies and proportion of stable remitters or stable responders who remained rel ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of esketamine, a novel intranasally dosed antidepressant, for patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression.MethodsA decision-analytic model parameterized with efficacy data from phase 3 randomized trials of esketamine was used to simulate the effects of treatment with esketamine versus oral antidepressants over a 5-year horizon, from both societal and health care sector perspectives. Outcomes included remission and response of depression, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for esketamine. Value-based prices were calculated, defined as the per-dose price at which esketamine would become cost-effective given cost-effectiveness thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY. Uncertainty in these outcomes was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Key model parameters included the efficacy of esketamine versus oral antidepressants (relative risk of 1.39 for remission; 1.32 for response) and the monthly cost of esketamine ($5,572 for month 1; $1,699-$2,244 thereafter).ResultsOver 5 years, esketamine was projected to increase time in remission from 25.3% to 31.1% of life-years, resulting in a gain of 0.07 QALYs. Esketamine increased societal costs by $16,617 and health care sector costs by $16,995. Base case ICERs were $237,111/QALY (societal) and $242,496/QALY (health care sector). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a greater than 95% likelihood that esketamine's ICER would be above $150,000/QALY. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000/QALY, esketamine's value-based price was approximately $140/dose (versus a current price of $240/dose).ConclusionsEsketamine is unlikely to be cost-effective for management of treatment-resistant depression in the United States unless its price falls by more than 40%.
| S-EPMC7920520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn this post-hoc analysis, data from 2 positive, pivotal, phase 3 trials of esketamine nasal spray (ESK) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD)-short-term study (TRANSFORM-2) and maintenance study (SUSTAIN-1)-were analyzed to evaluate the relationship between dissociation and antidepressant effects of ESK.MethodsAnalysis by responder status, correlation analysis, and mediation analysis were performed to assess the relationships between peak Clinician Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS) scores after first (day 1) and last (day 25) ESK dose and change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores at the first (day 2) and last assessments (day 28) in TRANSFORM-2 and peak CADSS after first maintenance ESK dose and time to relapse in SUSTAIN-1 (only for mediation analysis).ResultsIn TRANSFORM-2, the percentage of responders (>50% reduction in MADRS) at day 2 and day 28 did not significantly differ between patients who did vs did not manifest significant dissociation (peak CADSS scores >4 or ≤4, respectively) following the first ESK dose. Spearman correlation coefficients between dissociation and depression improvement were nonsignificant and close to zero. CADSS scores did not significantly mediate the reduction in MADRS at day 2 or 28 in TRANSFORM-2 or the time to depression relapse in SUSTAIN-1. The mean difference in MADRS between ESK and active-control arms persisted beyond day 2 without significant change across time, although the mean peak CADSS scores significantly decreased across consecutive doses and fewer patients experienced significant dissociation after the last ESK dose compared with the first.ConclusionWithin the dose range tested, the dissociative and antidepressant effects of ESK were not significantly correlated.Trial registrationNCT02417064 (TRANSFORM-1); NCT02418585(TRANSFORM-2); NCT02493868 (SUSTAIN-1).
| S-EPMC9017766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntranasal drug delivery offers a non-invasive and convenient dosing option for patients and physicians, especially for conditions requiring chronic/repeated-treatment administration. However, in some cases such delivery may be harmful to nasal and olfactory epithelia.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of long-term intermittent treatment with esketamine nasal spray, taken in conjunction with an oral antidepressant (AD), on olfactory function and nasal tolerability in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsA total of 1142 patients with TRD participated from four multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies: three short-term studies (two in patients aged 18-64 years, one in patients ≥65 years), and one long-term maintenance study of esketamine nasal spray + AD versus placebo nasal spray + AD. Across the four studies, assessments were performed at 208 sites in 21 countries. Olfactory function was measured using the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®) and the single-staircase Snap & Sniff® Odor Detection Threshold Test (S&S-T). Nasal tolerability, including nasal examinations and a quantitative, self-administered nasal symptom questionnaire (NSQ), was also assessed. Data were analyzed using analyses of covariance.ResultsOf 1142 participants, 734 were women (64.3%). The mean age of all participants ranged from 45.7 to 70.0 years across the studies. Overall, 855 patients received esketamine nasal spray + AD and 432 received placebo nasal spray + AD. Objective evaluation of nasal function showed no evidence of an adverse impact following esketamine administration. Based on the UPSIT® and S&S-T results, intranasal administration of esketamine had no effect on the odor identification or threshold test scores compared with placebo nasal spray + oral AD. Similarly, repeated administration with esketamine nasal spray had no meaningful impact on assessments of nasal function. No dose-response relationship was observed between esketamine doses and the olfactory test scores. Esketamine nasal spray was well tolerated, as indicated by responses on the NSQ and negative nasal examination findings.ConclusionFindings from this analysis indicate that there was no evidence of adverse effect on either olfactory or nasal health measures with repeated intermittent administration of esketamine nasal spray at any dose over the course of short-term (4 weeks) or long-term (16-100 weeks) studies.Clinical trial registrationTRANSFORM-1: NCT02417064, date of registration: 15/04/2015; TRANSFORM-2: NCT02418585, date of registration: 16/04/2015; TRANSFORM-3: NCT02422186, date of registration: 21/04/2015; SUSTAIN-1: NCT02493868, date of registration: 10/07/2015.
| S-EPMC8310483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this meta-analysis, we aimed to estimate and compare the efficacy of add-on treatment of antidepressants with esketamine nasal spray and second-generation antipsychotics in patients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder and inadequate response to antidepressants. Searching for acute-phase, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, we found 22 second-generation antipsychotic (n = 8363) and 3 intranasal esketamine (n = 641) studies. Mean change in the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score served as outcome. We determined a higher mean difference (vs placebo) for the pooled esketamine nasal spray trials (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval: 2.01 to 6.17) than for the pooled second-generation antipsychotic augmentation trials (mean difference = 2.05, 95% confidence interval: 1.51 to 2.59). Thus, the effect size for intranasal esketamine was nearly twice as high as those for the second-generation antipsychotics. This indicates high efficacy of add-on esketamine nasal spray in treatment-resistant major depressive disorder compared with other well-established, evidence-based pharmacological options such as augmentation with second-generation antipsychotics.
| S-EPMC7387762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceControlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant.Design, setting, and participantsIn this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase.InterventionsPatients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group.Main outcomes and measuresTime to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test.ResultsAmong the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P = .003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P < .001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (<7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo.Conclusions and relevanceFor patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493868.
| S-EPMC6551577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of esketamine nasal spray (NS) as a rapid-acting agent for treatment resistant depression (TRD) was demonstrated in comparisons with placebo, when both were given in addition to a newly initiated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). How esketamine NS compares with commonly used real-world (RW) polypharmacy treatment strategies is not known.MethodICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison that analysed data from SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov), a long-term, open-label study of esketamine NS plus SSRI/SNRI, and the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov), an observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were compared between patients receiving esketamine NS (SUSTAIN-2) and those from the EOTC treated with polypharmacy treatment strategies, either combination or augmentation. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, using rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Threshold analyses were conducted to assess potential impact of unmeasured confounders on the robustness of analyses where esketamine NS was found to be significantly superior. Sensitivity analyses were used to understand the impact of analysis method selection and data handling.ResultsEsketamine NS treatment resulted in a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) versus RW polypharmacy (26.8% [95% CI 21.0-32.5] and 19.4%, [95% CI 14.2-24.6], respectively). Relative risk calculations showed esketamine NS was 1.859 (95% CI 1.474-2.345; p < 0.0001) times as likely to result in response and 1.735 (1.297-2.322; p = 0.0002) times as likely to result in remission versus RW polypharmacy at 6 months. Threshold and extensive sensitivity analyses supported that analyses of esketamine NS superiority were robust.ConclusionICEBERG supports esketamine NS being superior to current RW individualized polypharmacy strategies, including augmentation, with benefits extending beyond acute use, to improved chance of 6-month response and remission. While unobserved confounding factors may certainly impact results of an indirect comparison, threshold analysis supported a low likelihood of this affecting the conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.
| S-EPMC10669145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a chronic illness requiring long-term treatment. Esketamine nasal spray (ESK) has been studied in several long-term trials of patients with TRD, including SUSTAIN-1 (NCT02493868) and SUSTAIN-3 (NCT02782104). This subgroup analysis of SUSTAIN-3 evaluated patients with TRD who received a second induction (IND) and maintenance treatment with ESK plus oral antidepressant (AD) after a relapse in SUSTAIN-1.MethodsPatients aged 18-64 years who achieved stable remission or response with ESK and subsequently relapsed after randomization to continue ESK or switch to placebo nasal spray (PBO) in SUSTAIN-1 and entered the IND phase of SUSTAIN-3 were included in this interim analysis. Response (≥50% improvement in total score from baseline for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9]), remission (MADRS score ≤12; PHQ-9 total score <5), changes in depression rating scores (measured as mean change from baseline), and safety were evaluated (incidence of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events [AE]).ResultsOf the 96 eligible patients who entered IND in SUSTAIN-3, 32 (33.3%) were taking ESK+AD at the time of relapse in SUSTAIN-1 and 64 (66.7%) were taking AD+PBO. Substantial improvements in depressive symptoms were observed over the second IND phase in both groups and were maintained over the optimization/maintenance (OP/M) phase. MADRS response rates following a second IND were 71.9% and 73.4% for previously relapsed (PR) ESK+AD and PR-AD+PBO, respectively; remission rates were 62.5% and 60.9%, respectively. During the IND and OP/M phases, 58.3% and 83.3% of patients experienced a treatment-emergent AE, respectively. No patients discontinued due to an AE during the second IND.ConclusionsPatients with TRD benefitted from receiving a second IND and maintenance treatment with ESK and no new safety signals were identified.
| S-EPMC10439056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the efficacy of ketorolac nasal spray (NS) vs. placebo and sumatriptan NS for the acute treatment of migraine.This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo and active-comparator, crossover study. Adult migraineurs were randomized to ketorolac NS 31.5 mg, sumatriptan NS 20 mg, or placebo to treat three moderate to severe migraine attacks and switched treatments with each attack. Patients seeking headache care at a headache center or in response to community advertisement were recruited. Adult participants with episodic migraine who experienced ?2 migraine attacks per month were eligible for the Ketorolac vs. Sumatriptan vs. Placebo Nasal Spray migraine study. Participants were randomized to treatment arms by a research pharmacist, in a 1:1:1 ratio using computer-generated lists. The primary outcome was 2-hour pain relief. Secondary outcomes included 2-hour pain freedom and absence of migraine associated symptoms, and 24-hour sustained pain relief and pain freedom.Of the 72 randomized participants, 54 (75%) treated at least one attack and 49 (68%) completed all three treatments, for a total of 152 treated migraine attacks. Both ketorolac NS (72.5%, P?<?.001) and sumatriptan NS (69.4%, P?=?.001) were more effective than placebo (38.3%) for 2-hour pain relief and 2-hour pain freedom (ketorolac: 43.1%, P?=?.004; sumatriptan: 36.7%, P?=?.046; placebo: 18.4%). Ketorolac NS, but not sumatriptan NS, was more effective than placebo in 2-hour absence of nausea. Both ketorolac NS and sumatriptan NS were more effective than placebo for 24-hour sustained pain relief (ketorolac: 49%, P?<?.001; sumatriptan: 31%, P?=?.01, placebo: 20%). Only ketorolac NS was superior to placebo for 24-hour (ketorolac: 35.3%, P?=?.003; sumatriptan: 22.4%, P?=?.18, placebo: 12.2%) sustained pain freedom. Nasal burning and dysgeusia were the most common adverse effects for active treatments.This study supports that ketorolac NS is superior to placebo and that it is non-inferior to sumatriptan NS for the acute abortive treatment of migraine.
| S-EPMC4822712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAbout one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression.MethodsThis Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested.ResultsStatistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache.ConclusionsStatistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.
| S-EPMC6822141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine which symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) improve in those treated with esketamine nasal spray in combination with oral antidepressant (AD) compared with those treated with placebo plus AD for adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These results complement the interpretation of PHQ-9 and MADRS total scores.MethodsThe TRANSFORM 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray in combination with AD. This post-hoc analysis used PHQ-9 and MADRS data to evaluate symptom changes. The total scores change and proportions of individual item change scores on the PHQ-9 and MADRS were evaluated at days 15 and 28; analysis of variance was used to test differences on total scores. Generalized estimation equations of logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of improvement on instrument items.ResultsThe mean total score reduction of the PHQ-9, indicating improvement, was greater in the esketamine plus AD arm compared with placebo plus AD at day 15 (- 1.8; p = 0.045) and day 28 (- 2.8; p = 0.006). Proportions of those who improved (≥ 1 point on a 4-point scale and ≥ 2 points on a 7-point scale for the PHQ-9 and MADRS, respectively) was greater in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group across all items. The odds of improving for those in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group were over two times greater on the PHQ-9 items: "Little interest/pleasure in things" (OR 2.252, 95% CI 1.165-4.355); "Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless" (OR 2.767, 95% CI 1.400-5.470); and "Feeling tired or having little energy" (OR 2.171, 95% CI 1.153-4.087). The mean reduction in total scores on the MADRS, indicating improvement, was numerically greater at day 15 (- 2.0; p = 0.189) and statistically significantly greater at day 28 (- 4.4; p = 0.017) in the esketamine plus AD arm compared with placebo plus AD. The odds of improving for those in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group were over two times greater on the MADRS items measuring "Apparent sadness" (OR 2.007, 95% CI 1.096-3.674); and "Inability to feel" (OR 2.099, 95% CI 1.180-3.735).ConclusionImprovement in mean total scores in those treated with esketamine plus AD compared with placebo plus AD are important results to confirm efficacy. The odds of improving in those treated with esketamine plus AD was at least two times greater than with placebo plus AD on three patient- and two clinician-reported individual symptoms of TRD. These findings provide patient-relevant quantification of the esketamine plus AD treatment benefit, adding understanding as to which symptoms are most improved with treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02418585; first posted 16 April 2015.
| S-EPMC9166828 | biostudies-literature