Benefit-Risk Assessment of Esketamine Nasal Spray vs. Placebo in Treatment-Resistant Depression

Eva G Katz, David Hough, Teodora Doherty, Rosanne Lane, Jaskaran Singh, Bennett Levitan, Eva G Katz, David Hough, Teodora Doherty, Rosanne Lane, Jaskaran Singh, Bennett Levitan

Abstract

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 relapse-free in the maintenance study. Risks were death, suicidal ideation, most common adverse events (AEs), and potential long-term risks. Per 100 patients on esketamine + AD vs. AD + placebo in induction therapy, 5-21 additional patients would remit and 14-17 additional patients would respond. In maintenance therapy, 19-32 fewer relapses would occur with esketamine. In both cases, there was little difference in serious or severe common AEs (primarily dissociation, vertigo, and dizziness). These findings support a positive benefit-risk balance for esketamine + AD as induction and maintenance treatment in patients with TRD.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02417064 NCT02418585 NCT02422186 NCT02493868.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors are employees of Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

© 2020 Janssen. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Esketamine phase III studies overview. (a) Short‐term induction studies (b) Maintenance study. Short‐term induction studies had same design but differed in dose and patients’ age: (i) TRANSFORM‐1: esketamine 56 or 84 mg fixed dose; age 18–64 years; (ii) TRANSFORM‐2: flexible dose; age: 18–64 years; (iii) TRANSFORM‐3: flexible dose; age: ≥ 65 years; *Duloxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended‐release; †Responders defined as ≥ 50% reduction in the MADRS total score from baseline (Day 1 prerandomization) at the end of the 4‐week double‐blind induction phase of the acute 3001 and 3002 studies; ‡Responders who entered the optimization phase remained on the same intranasal study drug as taken in the induction phase; §Frequency of intranasal medication sessions was reduced to once weekly for 4 weeks, then individualized to weekly or every other week based on severity of depressive symptoms (lowest dosing frequency adequate to maintain remission (MADRS ≤ 12)). AD, antidepressant; MADRS, Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; OL, open label; PBO, placebo; R, randomization; TRD, treatment‐resistant depression. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Benefit–risk assessment for short‐term treatment, risk differences (per 100 patients) in adults 18–64 years: TRANSFORM‐1 and 2 efficacy and pooled safety. No CI (confidence interval) provided if the number of events is 0 or 1 in either group. AD, antidepressants; ADR, adverse drug reaction; D/C, discontinuation; MADRS, Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Benefit–risk assessment for short‐term treatment, risk differences (per 100 patients) in adults ≥ 65 years: TRANSFORM‐3. No CI (confidence interval) provided if the number of events is 0 or 1 in either group. AD, antidepressants; ADR, adverse drug reaction; D/C, discontinuation; MADRS, Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 4
Figure 4
Benefit–risk assessment for maintenance treatment risk differences (per 100 patients): SUSTAIN‐1. No CI (confidence interval) provided if the number of events is 0 or 1 in either group. AD, antidepressants; ADR, adverse drug reaction; D/C, discontinuation. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

References

    1. US Food and Drug Administration . Structured approach to benefit‐risk assessment in drug regulatory decision‐making <> (2019). Accessed November 15, 2019.
    1. Luteijn, J.M. et al State of the art in benefit‐risk analysis: medicines. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50, 26–32 (2012).
    1. Pignatti, F. et al Structured frameworks to increase the transparency of the assessment of benefits and risks of medicines: current status and possible future directions. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 98, 522–533 (2015).
    1. ICH harmonised guideline: revision of M4E guideline on enhancing the format and structure of benefit‐risk information in ICH, efficacy ‐ M4E(R2) <> (2016). Accessed March 12, 2020.
    1. Levitan, B. A concise display of multiple end points for benefit‐risk assessment. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 56–59 (2011).
    1. Coplan, P.M. , Noel, R.A. , Levitan, B.S. , Ferguson, J. & Mussen, F. Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility and communication of the benefit‐risk balance of medicines. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 312–315 (2011).
    1. Hallgreen, C.E. et al Benefit‐risk assessment in a post‐market setting: a case study integrating real‐life experience into benefit‐risk methodology. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 23, 974–983 (2014).
    1. Hughes, D. et al Recommendations report: recommendations for the methodology and visualisation techniques to be used in the assessment of benefit and risk of medicines <> (2015). Accessed November 15, 2019.
    1. Levitan, B.S. et al Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89, 217–224 (2011).
    1. Walker, E.R. , McGee, R.E. & Druss, B.G. Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 72, 334–341 (2015).
    1. Rush, A.J. et al Acute and longer‐term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am. J. Psychiatry 163, 1905–1917 (2006).
    1. Trevino, K. , McClintock, S.M. , McDonald Fischer, N. , Vora, A. & Husain, M.M. Defining treatment‐resistant depression: a comprehensive review of the literature. Ann. Clin. Psychiatry 26, 222–232 (2014).
    1. Brown, S. , Rittenbach, K. , Cheung, S. , McKean, G. , MacMaster, F.P. & Clement, F. Current and common definitions of treatment‐resistant depression: findings from a systematic review and qualitative interviews. Can. J. Psychiatry 64, 380–387 (2019).
    1. Bergfeld, I.O. , Mantione, M. , Figee, M. , Schuurman, P.R. , Lok, A. & Denys, D. Treatment‐resistant depression and suicidality. J. Affect. Disord. 235, 362–367 (2018).
    1. DiBernardo, A. et al Humanistic outcomes in treatment resistant depression: a secondary analysis of the STAR*D study. BMC Psychiatry 18, 352 (2018).
    1. Machado‐Vieira, R. , Salvadore, G. , Luckenbaugh, D.A. , Manji, H.K. & Zarate Jr, C.A. Rapid onset of antidepressant action: a new paradigm in the research and treatment of major depressive disorder. J. Clin. Psychiatry 69, 946–958 (2008).
    1. Holtzheimer, P.E. Advances in the management of treatment‐resistant depression. Focus (Am. Psychiatr. Publ.) 8, 488–500 (2010).
    1. European Medical Agency . Spravato <>. Accessed December 2, 2019.
    1. Spravato [prescribing information]. (Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Titusville, NJ).
    1. Fedgchin, M. et al Efficacy and safety of fixed‐dose esketamine nasal spray combined with a new oral antidepressant in treatment‐resistant depression: results of a randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled study (TRANSFORM‐1). Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 22, 616–630 (2019).
    1. Popova, V. et al Efficacy and safety of flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray combined with a newly initiated oral antidepressant in treatment‐resistant depression: a randomized double‐blind active‐controlled study. Am. J. Psychiatry 176, 428–438 (2019).
    1. Ochs‐Ross, R. et al Efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant in elderly patients with treatment‐resistant depression‐TRANSFORM‐3. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 28, 121–141 (2020).
    1. Daly, E.J. et al Efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus oral antidepressant treatment for relapse prevention in patients with treatment‐resistant depression: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry 76, 893–903 (2019).
    1. Ziemssen, F. , Cruess, A. , Dunger‐Baldauf, C. , Margaron, P. , Snow, H. & Strain, W.D. Ranibizumab in diabetic macular oedema ‐ a benefit‐risk analysis of ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN versus laser treatment. Eur. Endocrinol. 13, 91–98 (2017).
    1. Levitan, B. , Markowitz, M. , Turkoz, I. , Fu, D.‐J. , Gopal, S. & Alphs, L. Benefit‐risk assessment of paliperidone oral extended‐release tablet versus monthly injectable for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. Int. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 31, 315–322 (2016).
    1. Detke, H.C. , Lauriello, J. , Landry, J. & McDonnell, D.P. Within‐drug benefit‐risk evaluation of olanzapine long‐acting injection at one and two years of treatment. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 23, 439–450 (2014).
    1. Nixon, R. et al A case study using the PrOACT‐URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment. Biom. J. 58, 8–27 (2016).
    1. Walker, S. , McAuslane, N. , Liberti, L. , Leong, J. & Salek, S. A Universal framework for the benefit‐risk assessment of medicines: is this the way forward? Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 49, 17–25 (2015).
    1. Zimmerman, M. , Posternak, M.A. & Chelminski, I. Derivation of a definition of remission on the Montgomery‐Asberg depression rating scale corresponding to the definition of remission on the Hamilton rating scale for depression. J. Psychiatr. Res. 38, 577–582 (2004).
    1. Kennedy, S.H. et al Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 clinical guidelines for the management of adults with major depressive disorder: section 3. Pharmacological treatments. Can. J. Psychiatry 61, 540–560 (2016).
    1. Phillips, J.L. , Batten, L.A. , Tremblay, P. , Aldosary, F. & Blier, P. A Prospective, longitudinal study of the effect of remission on cortical thickness and hippocampal volume in patients with treatment‐resistant depression. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 18, pyv037 (2015).
    1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) . Guidelines for Preparing Core Clinical‐Safety Information on Drugs 2nd edn. (Report of CIOMS Working Groups III and V, Geneva, 1999).
    1. Wajs, E. et al Esketamine nasal spray plus oral antidepressant in patients with treatment‐resistant depression: assessment of long‐term safety in a phase 3, open‐label study (SUSTAIN‐2). J. Clin. Psychiatry 81, 19m12891 (2020).
    1. Fairchild, A.O. et al Patient preferences for ketamine‐based antidepressant treatments in treatment‐resistant depression: results from a clinical trial and panel. Neurol. Psychiatry Brain Res. 47, 67–68 (2020).
    1. US Food and Drug Administration . Approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS): spravato (esketamine) <>. Accessed June 2, 2019.
    1. Katz, E. et al The patient’s perspective in benefit‐risk: how a preference study supported the esketamine application for regulatory approval in treatment‐resistant depression. 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology, Scottsdale, Arizona, May 28–31, 2019. Abstract #T73.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner