Assessment of health-related quality of life and health status in patients with treatment-resistant depression treated with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant.

BACKGROUND: Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) report significant deficits in physical and mental health, as well as severely impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functioning. Esketamine effectively enhances the daily functioning in these patients while also improving their depressive symptoms. This study assessed HRQoL and health status of patients with TRD, who were treated with esketamine nasal spray and an oral antidepressant (ESK + AD) vs. placebo nasal spray and an AD (AD + PBO). METHODS: Data from TRANSFORM-2, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, short-term flexibly dosed study, were analyzed. Patients (aged 18-64 years) with TRD were included. The outcome assessments included the European Quality of Life Group, Five Dimension, Five Level (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). The health status index (HSI) was calculated using EQ-5D-5L scores. RESULTS: The full analysis set included 223 patients (ESK + AD: 114; AD + PBO: 109; mean [SD] age: 45.7 [11.89]). At Day 28, a lower percentage of patients reported impairment in the ESK + AD vs. AD + PBO group in all five EQ-5D-5L dimensions: mobility (10.6% vs. 25.0%), self-care (13.5% vs. 32.0%), usual activities (51.9% vs. 72.0%), pain/discomfort (35.6% vs. 54.0%), and anxiety/depression (69.2% vs. 78.0%). The mean (SD) change from baseline in HSI at Day 28 was 0.310 (0.219) for ESK + AD and 0.235 (0.252) for AD + PBO, with a higher score reflecting better levels of health. The mean (SD) change from baseline in EQ-VAS score at Day 28 was greater in ESK + AD (31.1 [25.67]) vs. AD + PBO (22.1 [26.43]). The mean (SD) change in the SDS total score from baseline to Day 28 also favored ESK + AD (-13.6 [8.31]) vs. AD + PBO (-9.4 [8.43]). CONCLUSIONS: Greater improvements in HRQoL and health status were observed among patients with TRD treated with ESK + AD vs. AD + PBO. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02418585.

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

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.

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).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus a new oral antidepressant (OAD) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: This phase 3, open-label, multicenter, long-term (up to 1 year) study was conducted between October 2015 and October 2017. Patients (≥ 18 years) with TRD (DSM-5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder and nonresponse to ≥ 2 OAD treatments) were enrolled directly or transferred from a short-term study (patients aged ≥ 65 years). Esketamine nasal spray (28-mg, 56-mg, or 84-mg) plus new OAD was administered twice a week in a 4-week induction (IND) phase and weekly or every-other-week for patients who were responders and entered a 48-week optimization/maintenance (OP/MAINT) phase. RESULTS: Of 802 enrolled patients, 86.2% were direct-entry and 13.8% were transferred-entry; 580 (74.5%) of 779 patients who entered the IND phase completed the phase, and 150 (24.9%) of 603 who entered the OP/MAINT phase completed the phase. Common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were dizziness (32.9%), dissociation (27.6%), nausea (25.1%), and headache (24.9%). Seventy-six patients (9.5%) discontinued esketamine due to TEAEs. Fifty-five patients (6.9%) experienced serious TEAEs. Most TEAEs occurred on dosing days, were mild or moderate in severity, and resolved on the same day. Two deaths were reported; neither was considered related to esketamine. Cognitive performance generally either improved or remained stable postbaseline. There was no case of interstitial cystitis or respiratory depression. Treatment-emergent dissociative symptoms were transient and generally resolved within 1.5 hours postdose. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score decreased during the IND phase, and this reduction persisted during the OP/MAINT phase (mean [SD] change from baseline of respective phase to endpoint: IND, -16.4 [8.76]; OP/MAINT, 0.3 [8.12]). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term esketamine nasal spray plus new OAD therapy had a manageable safety profile, and improvements in depression appeared to be sustained in patients with TRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02497287.

Vascular Offenders in Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Unified Classification and Assessment of the Outcome of Microvascular Decompression.

BACKGROUND: Vascular loop compression remains the most accepted theory for trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Apart from the normal adjoining vascular loops, certain unusual vascular loops incriminated in TN such as vertebrobasilar dolichoectasia and pure venous compressions do not truly fit into the traditional classification. Moreover, vascular diseases such as cavernoma and aneurysms causing TN are considered as secondary TNs. There is a lack of unified classification for TN with underlying vascular offenders, otherwise amenable to microvascular decompression. METHODS: We classified vascular offenders in TN (n = 53) into the usual offenders such as superior cerebellar artery or anterior inferior cerebellar artery loop with (n = 4) or without (n = 34) superior petrosal vein loop (n = 38, group I). The unusual vascular offenders (n = 15, group II) comprised unusual arterial loops (n = 4, IIa), pure venous compressions (n = 8, IIb) and vascular diseases (n = 3, IIc). The clinical symptoms, pain severity scores, and surgical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: A right-sided preference and male predominance typified the unusual group. The incidence of atypical pain and sensory impairment was higher in group II. Group II also showed a less favorable immediate pain outcome, particularly the patients in group IIb. Group IIb also showed a higher incidence of postoperative hemorrhagic complications. However, long-term outcomes did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Unusual vascular offenders in TN do constitute a significant population. They differ from the usual group with respect to the type of pain, gender, and side of involvement and tend to have more complications with similar pain outcomes after microvascular decompression.

Are the long-acting intramuscular formulations of risperidone or paliperidone palmitate associated with post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome? An assessment of safety databases.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of antipsychotics are valuable treatment alternatives for patients with psychotic disorders, and understanding their safe use is critical. Post-injection delirium/sedation syndrome (PDSS) has been reported following treatment with one atypical antipsychotic LAI. Clinical databases of risperidone LAI and paliperidone palmitate were explored to identify if cases of PDSS had been observed. No cases of PDSS were identified in 15 completed trials of 3,164 subjects (approximately 115,000 injections) or the postmarketing safety database of risperidone LAI. Only one case of PDSS was identified among 10 completed trials (3,817 subjects, 33,906 injections) of paliperidone palmitate-that case having been reported in a patient randomized to treatment with placebo. Examination of these prospective databases finds no evidence that risperidone LAI and paliperidone palmitate are associated with PDSS and suggest that findings seen with another antipsychotic LAI are not generalizable.