Effect of brexanolone on depressive symptoms, anxiety, and insomnia in women with postpartum depression: Pooled analyses from 3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials in the HUMMINGBIRD clinical program.

BACKGROUND: Brexanolone is currently the only treatment specifically approved for postpartum depression (PPD) in the United States, based on the results from one Phase 2 and two Phase 3 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in the HUMMINGBIRD program. METHODS: Adults with PPD randomized to a 60-h infusion of brexanolone 90 µg/kg/h (BRX90) or placebo from the 3 trials were included in these post hoc analyses. Data on change from baseline (CFB) in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total score, HAMD-17 Anxiety/Somatization and Insomnia subscales, and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale were pooled. Response rates for HAMD-17 (≥50 % reduction from baseline) and CGI-I (score of 1 or 2) scales and time to response were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients receiving BRX90 (n = 102) versus placebo (n = 107) achieved a more rapid HAMD-17 response (median, 24 vs 36 h; p = 0.0265), with an Hour-60 cumulative response rate of 81.4 % versus 67.3 %; results were similar for time to CGI-I response (median, 24 vs 36 h; p = 0.0058), with an Hour-60 cumulative response rate of 81.4 % versus 61.7 %. CFB in HAMD-17 Anxiety/Somatization and Insomnia subscales also favored BRX90 versus placebo, starting at Hour 24 through Day 30 (all p < 0.05), and response rates for both subscales were higher with BRX90. LIMITATIONS: The study was not powered to assess exploratory outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Brexanolone was associated with rapid improvement in depressive symptoms and symptoms of anxiety and insomnia compared with placebo in women with PPD. These data continue to support the use of brexanolone to treat adults with PPD.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Initial and Repeat Treatment Courses With Zuranolone in Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: Interim Results From the Open-Label, Phase 3 SHORELINE Study.

Objective: Zuranolone is a positive allosteric modulator of both synaptic and extrasynaptic γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) type A receptors and a neuroactive steroid approved in the United States as an oral, once-daily, 14-day treatment course for adults with postpartum depression and under investigation for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). Interim results from the open-label, longitudinal, phase 3 SHORELINE Study (NCT03864614) that evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of zuranolone in adults with MDD are reported.Methods: This interim report includes patients who were enrolled and had the opportunity to be on study for up to 1 year between February 2019 and September 2021. Adults aged 18-75 years with MDD diagnosed per DSM-5 criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total score ≥ 20 received an initial 30-mg or 50-mg 14-day zuranolone course. HAMD-17 responders (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at Day (D)15 of the initial treatment period were allowed to continue in the study beyond D28 and were followed up for ≤ 1 year, during which repeat treatment courses were permitted. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of the initial and repeat treatment courses through 1 year. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline (CFB) in HAMD-17 total score and need for repeat treatment course(s).Results: As of September 2021, among patients in the 30-mg (n = 725) and 50-mg (n = 199) Cohorts who received a zuranolone dose, 493 (68.0%) and 137 (68.8%), respectively, reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); most patients who experienced TEAEs reported mild/moderate events (30-mg Cohort, 90.9% [448/493]; 50-mg Cohort, 85.4% [117/137]). Mean (standard deviation) CFB HAMD-17 total score at D15 of the initial treatment period was -15.2 (7.1) and -16.0 (6.0) for the 30-mg and 50-mg Cohorts, respectively; similar improvements were observed after repeat treatment courses. The proportion of patients who received only 1 treatment course during their time on study was 42.9% (210/489) in the 30-mg Cohort and 54.8% (80/146) in the 50-mg Cohort; 57.1% (279/489) and 45.2% (66/146) patients, respectively, received 2-5 total treatment courses. The majority of patients who initially responded to zuranolone received ≤ 2 total treatment courses (30-mg Cohort, 68.5% [335/489]; 50-mg Cohort, 79.5% [116/146]).Conclusions: Of patients who experienced TEAEs, most reported mild or moderately severe events, and responders to zuranolone experienced improvements in depressive symptoms with initial and repeat treatment courses.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03864614.

Research approaches for evaluating opioid sparing in clinical trials of acute and chronic pain treatments: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the treatment of acute and chronic pain conditions, and for some patients, these medications may be the only effective treatment available. Unfortunately, opioid analgesics are also associated with major risks (eg, opioid use disorder) and adverse outcomes (eg, respiratory depression and falls). The risks and adverse outcomes associated with opioid analgesics have prompted efforts to reduce their use in the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. This article presents Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus recommendations for the design of opioid-sparing clinical trials. The recommendations presented in this article are based on the following definition of an opioid-sparing intervention: any intervention that (1) prevents the initiation of treatment with opioid analgesics, (2) decreases the duration of such treatment, (3) reduces the total dosages of opioids that are prescribed for or used by patients, or (4) reduces opioid-related adverse outcomes (without increasing opioid dosages), all without causing an unacceptable increase in pain. These recommendations are based on the results of a background review, presentations and discussions at an IMMPACT consensus meeting, and iterative drafts of this article modified to accommodate input from the co-authors. We discuss opioid sparing definitions, study objectives, outcome measures, the assessment of opioid-related adverse events, incorporation of adequate pain control in trial design, interpretation of research findings, and future research priorities to inform opioid-sparing trial methods. The considerations and recommendations presented in this article are meant to help guide the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of future trials.

Human abuse potential studies of abuse-deterrent opioids: lessons from oral and intranasal studies with morphine abuse-deterrent, extended-release, injection-molded tablets.

BACKGROUND: The development and use of abuse-deterrent (AD) opioids is part of a multifaceted strategy to reduce misuse, abuse, and diversion, while maintaining access for patients with severe pain who may benefit from their analgesic efficacy. Morphine AD, extended-release (ER), injection-molded tablets (morphine-ADER-IMT; ARYMO ER; Egalet US Inc., Wayne, PA) is approved by the FDA as an AD opioid. As part of the characterization of AD opioids, assessments of their human abuse potential (HAP) are required. Evidence from HAP studies can guide clinicians on the use of AD opioids in clinical practice. Herein, we describe HAP study design, and how specific AD features can impact the conduct of a study and interpretation of its results. OBJECTIVES: To review the design features and results of the oral and intranasal HAP studies with morphine-ADER-IMT in order to improve the understanding of key elements of HAP studies of AD opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Results from HAP studies with morphine-ADER-IMT and other AD opioids suggest that key study design features include the release profile (immediate-release vs extended-release) of the positive control, study drug doses, and the way the products are manipulated. These elements can directly impact the outcomes of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (e.g. Maximum Drug Liking, Overall Drug Liking, and Take Drug Again) results. When evaluating HAP studies, it is important to understand study design features to assist in the interpretation of the results and understand the clinical relevance of the data to help guide clinical decision-making about the use of AD opioids.

The natural history of prescription opioid abuse: A pilot study exploring change in routes of administration and motivation for changes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective, observational pilot study was to explore change in route of administration (RoA) and motivation for changing RoA during the course of opioid abuse. DESIGN: This retrospective pilot study involved collecting and analyzing semistructured interview data. SETTING: Interviews were conducted with patients undergoing outpatient substance abuse treatment at a buprenorphine clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty adult patients (50 percent male) participated in the interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interview data were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed to evaluate trends and motivations for changing RoA. RESULTS: In this sample, RoA varied over time. Most patients (75.0 percent) began abusing prescription opioids by swallowing intact pills, and 53.3 percent of patients eventually progressed to chewing. All patients who initiated abuse through chewing or insufflation (ie, intranasal use) progressed to injection. However, several patients (20.0 percent) did not exhibit a linear progression from RoAs with lesser to greater risk for serious adverse events. Of the eight motivations for changing RoA identified in the current study, the most frequently cited (38.2 percent) motivation was to achieve a desired effect (eg, euphoria). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study is one of the first to investigate natural history of RoA in prescription opioid abuse and motivations for changing RoA. Results suggest that a defined pathway of RoA progression may not exist, and that achieving a desired effect is a common motivation for changing RoA. Although these findings need to be replicated in a larger sample, this research may help support the development of opioid risk mitigation strategies.