Relationship Between Dissociation and Antidepressant Effects of Esketamine Nasal Spray in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression.

BACKGROUND: In 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. METHODS: Analysis 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). RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSION: Within the dose range tested, the dissociative and antidepressant effects of ESK were not significantly correlated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02417064 (TRANSFORM-1); NCT02418585(TRANSFORM-2); NCT02493868 (SUSTAIN-1).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Noninferiority Study Comparing Paliperidone Palmitate 6-Month Versus the 3-Month Long-Acting Injectable in Patients With Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind (DB), randomized, parallel-group study was designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate 6-month (PP6M) formulation relative to paliperidone palmitate 3-month (PP3M) formulation in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Following screening, patients entered an open-label (OL) maintenance phase and received 1 injection cycle of paliperidone palmitate 1-month (PP1M; 100 or 150 mg eq.) or PP3M (350 or 525 mg eq.). Clinically stable patients were randomized (2:1) to receive PP6M (700 or 1000 mg eq., gluteal injections) or PP3M (350 or 525 mg eq.) in a 12-month DB phase; 2 doses of PP6M (corresponding to doses of PP1M and PP3M) were chosen. RESULTS: Overall, 1036 patients were screened, 838 entered the OL phase, and 702 (mean age: 40.8 years) were randomized (PP6M: 478; PP3M: 224); 618 (88.0%) patients completed the DB phase (PP6M: 416 [87.0%]; PP3M: 202 [90.2%]). Relapse rates were PP6M, 7.5% (n = 36) and PP3M, 4.9% (n = 11). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the difference (95% CI) between treatment groups (PP6M - PP3M) in the percentages of patients who remained relapse free was -2.9% (-6.8%, 1.1%), thus meeting noninferiority criteria (95% CI lower bound is larger than the pre-specified noninferiority margin of -10%). Secondary efficacy endpoints corroborated the primary analysis. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between PP6M (62.1%) and PP3M (58.5%). No new safety concerns emerged. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of a twice-yearly dosing regimen of PP6M was noninferior to that of PP3M in preventing relapse in patients with schizophrenia adequately treated with PP1M or PP3M. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT03345342.

Comparison of Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant in Younger Versus Older Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression: Post-Hoc Analysis of SUSTAIN-2, a Long-Term Open-Label Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy Study.

BACKGROUND: Older, compared with younger, patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) typically have lower response and remission rates with poorer tolerability to antidepressant treatment. This post-hoc analysis compared outcomes following treatment with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) between younger (18-64 years) and older (≥65 years) patients with TRD. METHODS: SUSTAIN-2, an up to 1-year open-label safety and efficacy study of ESK plus an oral antidepressant, included patients with TRD either directly enrolled (≥18-year) or transferred from a phase 3 double-blind study, TRANSFORM-3 (≥65-year). Patients were treated in two phases: 4-week induction and 48-week optimization/maintenance. RESULTS: Younger (n = 624) and older (n = 178) patients had similar baseline characteristics except for hypertension history (21.5% versus 48.3%, respectively). Patients (younger versus older) had similar mean baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores and mean (SD) reductions in MADRS total scores for induction (-18.0 [7.19] versus -18.1 [9.37]; p = 0.492 [t = 0.69, df = 701]) and optimization/maintenance (week 12) (-19.9 [7.03] versus -22.2 [9.50]; p = 0.265 [t = -1.12, df = 3470]) phases. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported in younger versus older patients, respectively, were: induction, 86.1% versus 74.8%; optimization/maintenance, 86.8% versus 81.0%; serious TEAEs: induction, 2.2% versus 1.9%; optimization/maintenance, 6.7% versus 4.8%; TEAEs of increased blood pressure: induction, 6.9% versus 6.5%; optimization/maintenance, 7.1% versus 9.5%; and falls: induction, 0.3% versus 0.6%; optimization/maintenance, 0.2% versus 0.8%. Cognitive tests did not show clinically meaningful differences between the age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited by the open-label design of SUSTAIN-2, this post-hoc analysis showed generally comparable improvement in depression between ESK-treated younger and older adult patients with TRD, with consistent safety outcomes.

Assessing treatment benefit in the presence of placebo response using the sequential parallel comparison design.

In clinical trials, placebo response is considered a beneficial effect arising from multiple factors, including the patient's expectations for the treatment. Its presence makes the classical parallel study design suboptimal and can bias the inference. The sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), a two-stage design where the first stage is a classical parallel study design, followed by another parallel design among placebo subjects from the first stage, was proposed to address the shortcomings of the classical design. In SPCD, in lieu of treatment effect, a weighted average of the mean treatment difference in Stage I among all randomized subjects and the mean treatment difference in Stage II among placebo non-responders was proposed as the efficacy measure. However, by linking two possibly different populations, this weighted average lacks interpretability, and the choice of weight remains controversial. In this work, under the principal stratification framework, we propose a causal estimand for the treatment effect under each of three clinically important principal strata: Always Responders, Never Responders, and Drug-only Responders. To make the stratum treatment effect identifiable, we introduce a set of assumptions and two sensitivity parameters. By further considering the strata as latent characteristics, the sensitivity parameters can be estimated. An extensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method. Finally, we apply our method on the ADAPT-A study data to assess the benefit of low-dose aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapy treatment.

Esketamine Nasal Spray for Rapid Reduction of Depressive Symptoms in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Who Have Active Suicide Ideation With Intent: Results of a Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized Study (ASPIRE II).

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus an Oral Antidepressant in Elderly Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression-TRANSFORM-3.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with major depression have a poorer prognosis, are less responsive to treatment, and show greater functional decline compared with younger patients, highlighting the need for effective treatment. METHODS: This phase 3 double-blind study randomized patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) ≥65 years (1:1) to flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray and new oral antidepressant (esketamine/antidepressant) or new oral antidepressant and placebo nasal spray (antidepressant/placebo). The primary endpoint was change in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to day 28. Analyses included a preplanned analysis by age (65-74 versus ≥75 years) and post-hoc analyses including age at depression onset. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, the median-unbiased estimate of the treatment difference (95% CI) was -3.6 (-7.20, 0.07); weighted combination test using MMRM analyses z = 1.89, two-sided p = 0.059. Adjusted mean (95% CI) difference for change in MADRS score between treatment groups was -4.9 (-8.96, -0.89; t = -2.4, df = 127; two-sided nominal p = 0.017) for patients 65 to 74 years versus -0.4 (-10.38, 9.50; t = -0.09, two-sided nominal p = 0.930) for those ≥75 years, and -6.1 (-10.33, -1.81; t = -2.8, df = 127; two-sided nominal p = 0.006) for patients with depression onset <55 years and 3.1 (-4.51, 10.80; t = 0.8, two-sided nominal p = 0.407) for those ≥55 years. Patients who rolled over into the long-term open-label study showed continued improvement with esketamine following 4 additional treatment weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine/antidepressant did not achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint. Greater differences between treatment arms were seen for younger patients (65-74 years) and patients with earlier onset of depression (<55 years).

Continual reassessment method with regularization in phase I clinical trials.

Many Phase I trial designs have been developed to improve upon the standard 3+3 design. These designs can be classified as long-memory designs, for example, the continual reassessment method (CRM), and short-memory designs such as the modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) design. Long-term memory designs use all data but their performance can be negatively affected by the model misspecification. Short-term memory designs only use data at the current dose and might lose efficiency as a result. To overcome these issues, we propose a regularized CRM (rCRM). The rCRM offers a trade-off between long-term memory and short-term memory methods. The rCRM gives more weight to data obtained at the doses with the estimated probability of toxicity closer to the target toxicity rate. The addition of a regularization term has an effect of shrinking the dimension of the model and leads to improved performance of the 2-parameter CRM. The rCRM is a good design choice to guide assignments in an expansion cohort phase of a dose-finding trial since dose assignments do not seem to change as often as in corresponding CRMs.

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).

BACKGROUND: About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Statistical 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. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical 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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Guidelines for the Content of Statistical Analysis Plans in Clinical Trials.

Importance: While guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials exists, there is an absence of guidance covering the required content of statistical analysis plans (SAPs) to support transparency and reproducibility. Objective: To develop recommendations for a minimum set of items that should be addressed in SAPs for clinical trials, developed with input from statisticians, previous guideline authors, journal editors, regulators, and funders. Design: Funders and regulators (n = 39) of randomized trials were contacted and the literature was searched to identify existing guidance; a survey of current practice was conducted across the network of UK Clinical Research Collaboration-registered trial units (n = 46, 1 unit had 2 responders) and a Delphi survey (n = 73 invited participants) was conducted to establish consensus on SAPs. The Delphi survey was sent to statisticians in trial units who completed the survey of current practice (n = 46), CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guideline authors (n = 16), pharmaceutical industry statisticians (n = 3), journal editors (n = 9), and regulators (n = 2) (3 participants were included in 2 groups each), culminating in a consensus meeting attended by experts (N = 12) with representatives from each group. The guidance subsequently underwent critical review by statisticians from the surveyed trial units and members of the expert panel of the consensus meeting (N = 51), followed by piloting of the guidance document in the SAPs of 5 trials. Findings: No existing guidance was identified. The registered trials unit survey (46 responses) highlighted diversity in current practice and confirmed support for developing guidance. The Delphi survey (54 of 73, 74% participants completing both rounds) reached consensus on 42% (n = 46) of 110 items. The expert panel (N = 12) agreed that 63 items should be included in the guidance, with an additional 17 items identified as important but may be referenced elsewhere. Following critical review and piloting, some overlapping items were combined, leaving 55 items. Conclusions and Relevance: Recommendations are provided for a minimum set of items that should be addressed and included in SAPs for clinical trials. Trial registration, protocols, and statistical analysis plans are critically important in ensuring appropriate reporting of clinical trials.

Brief Report: Mediation Analysis with an Ordinal Outcome.

The article presents concepts and methods for mediation analysis for an ordinal outcome. We give definitions of natural direct and indirect effects using counterfactuals for ordinal outcomes; in this context, there are potentially different effects for any two levels of the outcome, and we consider difference and ratio scales. The confounding assumptions required for identification are similar to that in the existing mediation analysis literature. We discuss different modeling strategies for estimation. Under a proportional odds model with a reference category that is common, the direct and indirect effects on a ratio scale can each be summarized by a single estimate and are available in closed form; otherwise the effects may differ across categories compared and can be obtained by numeric simulation methods.

Defining Clinical Trial Estimands: A Practical Guide for Study Teams with Examples Based on a Psychiatric Disorder.

While the ICH E9(R1) Addendum on "Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials" was released in late 2019, the widespread implementation of defining and reporting estimands across clinical trials is still in progress and the engagement of non-statistical functions in this process is also in progress. Case studies are sought after, especially those with documented clinical and regulatory feedback. This paper describes an interdisciplinary process for implementing the estimand framework, devised by the Estimands and Missing Data Working Group (a group with clinical, statistical, and regulatory representation) of the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology. This process is illustrated by specific examples using various types of hypothetical trials evaluating a treatment for major depressive disorder. Each of the estimand examples follows the same template and features all steps of the proposed process, including identifying the trial stakeholder(s), the decisions they need to make about the investigated treatment in their specific role and the questions that would support their decision making. Each of the five strategies for handling intercurrent events are addressed in at least one example; the featured endpoints are also diverse, including continuous, binary and time to event. Several examples are presented that include specifications for a potential trial design, key trial implementation elements needed to address the estimand, and main and sensitivity estimator specifications. Ultimately this paper highlights the need to incorporate multi-disciplinary collaborations into implementing the ICH E9(R1) framework.

A randomized trial of paliperidone palmitate and risperidone long-acting injectable in schizophrenia.

Paliperidone palmitate (PP) is a recently (USA) approved injectable new-generation antipsychotic. This 53-wk, Phase-III double-blind study was designed to assess the non-inferiority of PP to risperidone long-acting injectable (RIS-LAI) in schizophrenia treatment. Acutely symptomatic patients (n=749), with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score between 60 and 120 were randomly allocated to gluteal injections of either (a) PP: 50 mg eq. on days 1 and 8, and flexible dosing [25-100 mg eq. (i.e. 39-156 mg USA dosing)] once-monthly; or (b) RIS-LAI: bi-weekly injections of 25 mg on days 8 and 22, and flexible dosing (25-50 mg) starting from day 36, with allowed oral supplementation. Patients (n=747) were 59% men, 92% white, mean (s.d.) age of 41 (11.95) yr and 45% (n=339) completed the study. Mean (s.d.) change from baseline to endpoint in PANSS total score was: -11.6 (21.22) PP; and -14.4 (19.76) RIS-LAI (per-protocol analysis set, primary measure); least-squares means difference was -2.6 (95% CI -5.84 to 0.61), with a prespecified 5-point non-inferiority margin. PP's suboptimal dosing regimen (<150 mg eq. initial dose) resulted in lower median plasma levels of the active moiety in PP-treated vs. RIS-LAI-treated patients. Insomnia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, with a similar incidence in both groups (15%). PP did not demonstrate comparable efficacy to RIS-LAI, which may be attributable to the initiation dosing strategy employed. Tolerability of both treatments was comparable to previous studies, with no new safety signals detected.

On efficient two-stage adaptive designs for clinical trials with sample size adjustment.

Group sequential designs are rarely used for clinical trials with substantial over running due to fast enrollment or long duration of treatment and follow-up. Traditionally, such trials rely on fixed sample size designs. Recently, various two-stage adaptive designs have been introduced to allow sample size adjustment to increase statistical power or avoid unnecessarily large trials. However, these adaptive designs can be seriously inefficient. To address this infamous problem, we propose a likelihood-based two-stage adaptive design where sample size adjustment is derived from a pseudo group sequential design using cumulative conditional power. We show through numerical examples that this design cannot be improved by group sequential designs. In addition, the approach may uniformly improve any existing two-stage adaptive designs with sample size adjustment. For statistical inference, we provide methods for sequential p-values and confidence intervals, as well as median unbiased and minimum variance unbiased estimates. We show that the claim of inefficiency of adaptive designs by Tsiatis and Mehta ( 2003 ) is logically flawed, and thereby provide a strong defense of Cui et al. ( 1999 ).

On adaptive error spending approach for group sequential trials with random information levels.

A group sequential analysis following the error spending approach of Lan and DeMets ( 1983 ) requires that the maximum information level be fixed in advance. In practice, however, the maximum information level is often random, making it impossible to determine the information fractions required by Lan and DeMets ( 1983 ) to calculate the sequential boundary. We propose an adaptive error spending approach that further expands practical applications to settings where the interim information levels can depend on blinded accumulating data. We use a simple weighting method to combine independent test statistics from different stages, which are then compared with adaptive boundary values for the group sequential test. We develop a measure-theoretic framework and show that the adaptive error spending approach controls the type 1 error rates. Methods for point estimates and confidence intervals are also proposed. We warn that an error spending approach can lead to serious inflation of the type 1 error rates when the number or timing of interim analyses is allowed to depend on unblinded accumulating data.

Doubly randomized delayed-start design for enrichment studies with responders or nonresponders.

High placebo response has been a major source of bias and is difficult to deal with in many central nervous system (CNS) clinical trials. This bias has led to a high failure rate in mood disorder trials even with known effective drugs. For cancer trials, the traditional parallel group design biases the inference on the maintenance effect of the new drug with the traditional time-to-treatment failure analysis. To minimize bias, we propose a doubly randomized delayed-start design for clinical trials with enrichment. The design consists of two periods. In the first period, patients can be randomized to receive several doses of a new drug or a control. In the second period, control patients of the first period of an enriched population can be rerandomized to receive the same or fewer doses of the new drug or to continue on the control. Depending on the clinical needs, different randomization ratios can be applied to the two periods. The essential feature is that the design is naturally adaptive because of the randomization for the second period. As a result, other aspects of the second period, such as the sample size, can be modified adaptively when an interim analysis is set up for the first period. At the end of the trial, response data from both randomizations are combined in an integrated analysis. Because of the enrichment in the second period, the design increases the probability of trial success and, in addition, reduces the required sample size. Thus, for clinical development, the design offers greater efficiency.

Effect of Esketamine Nasal Spray on Olfactory Function and Nasal Tolerability in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression: Results from Four Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Studies.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal 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. OBJECTIVE: The 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). METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Of 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. CONCLUSION: Findings 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 REGISTRATION: TRANSFORM-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.

Paliperidone palmitate, a potential long-acting treatment for patients with schizophrenia. Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study.

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational long-acting injectable antipsychotic agent paliperidone palmitate (PP) in the treatment of schizophrenia. Patients were randomized to receive gluteal injections of placebo or PP (50 or 100 mg eq., fixed doses), without oral supplementation, on days 1, 8, and 36 (9-wk, double-blind phase) in this phase 2b study. Patients (n=197, intent-to-treat analysis set) were 62% men, mean (s.d.) age 39 (10) yr, with a baseline mean (s.d.) Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of 87.0 (12.5). Mean (s.d.) PANSS total scores showed significant improvement at endpoint (primary measure) for both the PP 50 mg eq. [-5.2 (21.5)] and PP 100 mg eq. [-7.8 (19.4)] groups, vs. placebo [6.2 (18.3)] (p0.001, each dose vs. placebo). This improvement was detected by day 8 and maintained to endpoint (p0.011) for both doses. In the safety analysis set (n=247), fewer PP-treated patients (2%) discontinued for treatment-emergent adverse events vs. placebo-treated (10%). Rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal syndrome-related adverse events were comparable between active treatment and placebo, with the exception of parkinsonism-related disorders (50 mg eq. 5%, 100 mg eq. 8%, placebo 1%). Results of other safety measures suggest PP to be generally well-tolerated. Throughout the study, investigators rated injection-site pain as absent (56-71%), mild (24-39%), moderate (2-12%), or severe (0-2%). PP (50 and 100 mg eq. doses) administered as a gluteal intramuscular injection was efficacious and generally tolerated in these patients with acute symptomatic schizophrenia.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of 3 doses of paliperidone palmitate in adults with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia.

This study assessed the efficacy and the safety of a dosing regimen that was revised from earlier studies for the investigational injectable atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate (approved in the USA, August 2009) for adult patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia. The patients (N = 652) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to paliperidone palmitate at 25, 100, or 150 mg eq. or placebo in this 13-week double-blind study. The patients received an injection of paliperidone palmitate at 150 mg eq. or placebo in the deltoid muscle on day 1 and the assigned fixed dose or placebo in the deltoid or gluteal [corrected] on day 8 and then once monthly (days 36 and 64). No oral supplementation was used. Target plasma levels were achieved by day 8 in all paliperidone palmitate groups. The mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score from baseline to end point improved significantly (P < or = 0.034) in all the paliperidone palmitate dose-groups versus placebo. Paliperidone palmitate treatment with this revised dosing regimen led to the achievement of rapid and consistent therapeutically effective plasma levels that were maintained by once-monthly dosing in either the deltoid or gluteal muscle. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (> or =2% of patients in any of the treatment groups) that occurred more frequently in the total paliperidone palmitate group versus the placebo group (with > or =1% difference) were injection-site pain (7.6% vs 3.7%), dizziness (2.5% vs 1.2%), sedation (2.3% vs 0.6%), pain in the extremity (1.6% vs 0.0%), and myalgia (1.0% vs 0.0%). The paliperidone palmitate treatment was efficacious and generally tolerated across the dose range (25, 100, or 150 mg eq.) in adult patients with acutely exacerbated schizophrenia.

A randomized, placebo- and active-controlled study of paliperidone extended release for the treatment of acute manic and mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the antimanic efficacy and safety of paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: This study included a 3-week, double-blind, acute treatment phase (paliperidone ER versus placebo, with quetiapine as control), and a 9-week, double-blind, maintenance phase (paliperidone ER versus quetiapine). Patients [n = 493; Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) score >or= 20] were randomized (2:2:1) to flexibly dosed paliperidone ER (3-12 mg/day), quetiapine (400-800 mg/day), or placebo for the acute treatment phase. During the maintenance phase, patients assigned to placebo were switched to paliperidone ER but not included in analysis of efficacy. RESULTS: Paliperidone ER was superior to placebo at the 3-week endpoint {primary outcome; least-squares mean difference in change from baseline in YMRS scores [95% confidence interval (CI)]: -5.5 (-7.57; -3.35); p < 0.001} and noninferior to quetiapine at the 12-week endpoint [least-squares mean difference (95% CI): 1.7 (-0.47; 3.96)]. The median mode dose during the 12-week treatment period was 9 mg for paliperidone ER and 600 mg for quetiapine. The most common (>or= 10%) treatment-emergent adverse events during the 12-week period were: headache (16%), somnolence (10%), and akathisia (10%) for paliperidone ER; somnolence (21%), sedation and dry mouth (17% each), headache (14%), and dizziness (13%) for quetiapine. Body weight increase >or= 7% from baseline to 12-week endpoint was 8% with paliperidone ER and 17% with quetiapine. A higher percentage of paliperidone ER (13.9%) versus quetiapine patients (7.5%) 'switched to depression' at the12-week endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Paliperidone ER (3-12 mg/day) was efficacious and tolerable in the treatment of acute mania.

One-year open-label safety and efficacy study of paliperidone extended-release tablets in patients with schizophrenia.

INTRODUCTION: This 52-week open-label extension (OLE) to a double-blind placebo-controlled recurrence prevention study examined the long-term safety and efficacy of flexibly-dosed paliperidone extended-release (ER) tablets in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: Patients entering the OLE either entered from the double-blind phase (placebo or paliperidone ER treatment) or entered directly from the run-in or stabilization phase (paliperidone ER) of the earlier study. During the OLE, patients were treated with flexibly-dosed paliperidone ER (3-15 mg/day; 9 mg starting dose). Safety and tolerability assessments included incidence of adverse events and extrapyramidal symptoms. Efficacy was also assessed. RESULTS: The study population (n=235) was predominantly men (66%), 18-58 years of age. Twelve patients (5%) experienced an adverse event requiring treatment discontinuation. One or more serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6%). There was one death. The mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score decreased from open-label baseline to endpoint for all groups, regardless of previous double-blind treatment (placebo or paliperidone ER). CONCLUSION: This year-long OLE provides information on the long-term safety and tolerability of paliperidone ER in patients with schizophrenia. The resulting safety and tolerability profile was similar to that seen in earlier short-term studies.