Esketamine Nasal Spray versus Quetiapine for Treatment-Resistant Depression.

BACKGROUND: In treatment-resistant depression, commonly defined as a lack of response to two or more consecutive treatments during the current depressive episode, the percentage of patients with remission is low and the percentage with relapse is high. The efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray as compared with extended-release quetiapine augmentation therapy, both in combination with ongoing treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), in patients with treatment-resistant depression are unknown. METHODS: In an open-label, single-blind (with raters unaware of group assignments), multicenter, phase 3b, randomized, active-controlled trial, we assigned patients, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive flexible doses (according to the summary of product characteristics) of esketamine nasal spray (esketamine group) or extended-release quetiapine (quetiapine group), both in combination with an SSRI or SNRI. The primary end point was remission, defined as a score of 10 or less on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), at week 8 (scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating more severe depression). The key secondary end point was no relapse through week 32 after remission at week 8. All patients were included in the analysis; patients who discontinued the trial treatment were considered as having had an unfavorable outcome (i.e., they were grouped with patients who did not have remission or who had a relapse). Analyses of the primary and key secondary end points were adjusted for age and number of treatment failures. RESULTS: Overall, 336 patients were assigned to the esketamine group and 340 to the quetiapine group. More patients in the esketamine group than in the quetiapine group had remission at week 8 (91 of 336 patients [27.1%] vs. 60 of 340 patients [17.6%]; P = 0.003) and had no relapse through week 32 after remission at week 8 (73 of 336 patients [21.7%] vs. 48 of 340 patients [14.1%]). Over 32 weeks of follow-up, the percentage of patients with remission, the percentage of patients with a treatment response, and the change in the MADRS score from baseline favored esketamine nasal spray. The adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of the trial treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with treatment-resistant depression, esketamine nasal spray plus an SSRI or SNRI was superior to extended-release quetiapine plus an SSRI or SNRI with respect to remission at week 8. (Funded by Janssen EMEA; ESCAPE-TRD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04338321.).

Effects of esketamine on patient-reported outcomes in major depressive disorder with active suicidal ideation and intent: a pooled analysis of two randomized phase 3 trials (ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II).

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of esketamine nasal spray on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with major depressive disorder having active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI). METHODS: Patient-level data from two phase 3 studies (ASPIRE I; ASPIRE II) of esketamine + standard of care (SOC) in patients (aged 18-64 years) with MDSI, were pooled. PROs were evaluated from baseline through end of the double-blind treatment phase (day 25). Outcome assessments included: Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), Quality of Life (QoL) in Depression Scale (QLDS), European QoL Group-5-Dimension-5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and 9-item Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). Changes in BHS and QLDS scores (baseline to day 25) were analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). RESULTS: Pooled data for esketamine + SOC (n = 226; mean age: 40.5 years, 59.3% females) and placebo + SOC (n = 225; mean age: 39.6 years, 62.2% females) were analyzed. Mean ± SD change from baseline to day 25, esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC (least-square mean difference [95% CI] based on MMRM): BHS total score, - 7.4 ± 6.7 vs - 6.8 ± 6.5 [- 1.0 (- 2.23, 0.21)]; QLDS score, - 14.4 ± 11.5 vs - 12.2 ± 10.8 [- 3.1 (- 5.21, - 1.02)]. Relative risk (95% CI) of reporting perceived problems (slight to extreme) in EQ-5D-5L dimensions (day 25) in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC: mobility [0.78 (0.50, 1.20)], self-care [0.83 (0.55, 1.27)], usual activities [0.87 (0.72, 1.05)], pain/discomfort [0.85 (0.69, 1.04)], and anxiety/depression [0.90 (0.80, 1.00)]. Mean ± SD changes from baseline in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC for health status index: 0.23 ± 0.21 vs 0.19 ± 0.22; and for EQ-Visual Analogue Scale: 24.0 ± 27.2 vs 19.3 ± 24.4. At day 25, mean ± SD in domains of TSQM-9 scores in esketamine + SOC vs placebo + SOC were: effectiveness, 67.2 ± 25.3 vs 56.2 ± 26.8; global satisfaction, 69.9 ± 25.2 vs 56.3 ± 27.8; and convenience, 74.0 ± 19.4 vs 75.4 ± 18.7. CONCLUSION: These PRO data support the patient perspective of the effect associated with esketamine + SOC in improving health-related QoL in patients with MDSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: ASPIRE I, NCT03039192 (Registration date: February 1, 2017); ASPIRE II, NCT03097133 (Registration date: March 31, 2017).

Esketamine versus placebo on time to remission in major depressive disorder with acute suicidality.

BACKGROUND: Esketamine (ESK) nasal spray, taken with oral antidepressant therapy, is approved for the treatment of depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In pooled analyses of two pivotal phase 3 studies, ASPIRE I and II, remission rates were consistently higher among patients with MDD with active suicidality who were treated with ESK + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo (PBO) + SOC at all time points in the double-blind and most time points in the follow-up phases. The current analysis of the ASPIRE data sets assessed the effect of ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC on additional remission-related endpoints: time to achieving remission and consistent remission, proportion of patients in remission and consistent remission, and days in remission. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and II (N = 451). Remission and consistent remission were defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤ 12 at any given visit or two consecutive visits, respectively. Combined endpoints utilizing Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised version [CGI-SS-r] ≤ 1 (i.e., not suicidal/questionably suicidal) along with the remission and consistent remission definitions (i.e., MADRS total score ≤ 12) were also examined. RESULTS: The median times to remission and consistent remission of MDD were significantly shorter in ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC (15 versus 23 [p = 0.005] and 23 versus 50 days [p = 0.007], respectively) and a greater proportion of patients in ESK + SOC achieved remission and consistent remission by Day 25 (65.2% versus 55.5% and 54.2% versus 39.8%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the combined endpoint for both remission definitions. The median percent of days in remission during the double-blind treatment phase was significantly greater in ESK + SOC (27.1% or 5 days) versus PBO + SOC (8.3% or 2 days; p = 0.006), and the significant difference was maintained during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC resulted in significantly shorter time to remission, greater proportion of patients in remission, and greater percent of days in remission using increasingly rigorous definitions of remission. These findings underscore the clinical benefits of ESK for adults with MDD with suicidality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT03039192 (registered February 1, 2017) and NCT03097133 (registered March 31, 2017).

Treatment response to esketamine nasal spray in patients with major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior without evidence of early response: a pooled post hoc analysis of ASPIRE.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the likelihood of attaining response/remission of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus standard of care (SoC) vs placebo nasal spray (PBO) plus SoC at 4 weeks in patients with major depressive disorder and active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI) without early response. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II evaluated ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC in adults with MDSI without response (≥50% improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score) at 24 hours after the first dose or at week 1 after the first two doses (ie, 24-hour and week 1 nonresponders). Response and remission (MADRS score ≤ 12) rates were assessed on day 25. RESULTS: The analysis included 362 patients (n = 182, ESK plus SoC; n = 180, PBO plus SoC). Among 24-hour nonresponders, more patients receiving ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC achieved response (63.9% vs 48.0%, P = .010) and remission (35.1% vs 24.4%, P = .074) at day 25. Odds of response/remission were higher with ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC (response: 1.89, 95% CI, 1.17-3.05; remission: 1.48, 95% CI, 0.93-2.35). Similar findings were observed among week 1 nonresponders for response (48.4% vs 34.5%, P = .075), remission (25.0% vs 13.1%, P = .060), and odds of response/remission (response: 2.03, 95% CI, 1.22-3.40; remission: 1.63, 95% CI, 1.01-2.62). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MDSI not responding within the first week of treatment with ESK plus SoC may still benefit from a full 4-week treatment course.

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.

Esketamine Nasal Spray for the Rapid Reduction of Depressive Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder With Acute Suicidal Ideation or Behavior.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Numerous health authority approvals of esketamine nasal spray, combined with oral antidepressant, to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder and acute suicidal ideation or behavior were based on 2 identically designed, double-blind, phase 3 studies. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Across both ASPIRE studies (NCT03039192, NCT03097133), patients (N = 456) were randomized to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice weekly for 4 weeks plus comprehensive standard of care, including hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized antidepressant(s). In post hoc analyses of pooled data, changes from baseline at 24 hours after the first dose in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-Revised, in the full cohort and in subgroups, were analyzed using analysis of covariance. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Esketamine plus standard of care demonstrated significantly greater improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score versus placebo plus standard of care at 24 hours (least square mean difference [95% confidence interval], -3.8 [-5.75 to -1.89]) and at earlier (4 hours: -3.4 [-5.05 to -1.71]) and later time points (day 25: -3.4 [-5.36 to -1.36]). The between-group difference (95% confidence interval) for change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-Revised at 24 hours was -0.20 (-0.43 to 0.04) for all patients and -0.31 (-0.61 to -0.01) for those with a history of suicide attempt. Common adverse events (≥20%) during esketamine treatment were dizziness, dissociation, nausea, somnolence, and headache. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine plus comprehensive standard of care rapidly reduces depressive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder who have acute suicidal ideation or behavior, especially in those with a history of suicide attempt, providing a new treatment option for this particularly ill and vulnerable population.

Genome-wide association study of paliperidone efficacy.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical response to the atypical antipsychotic paliperidone is known to vary among schizophrenic patients. We carried out a genome-wide association study to identify common genetic variants predictive of paliperidone efficacy. METHODS: We leveraged a collection of 1390 samples from individuals of European ancestry enrolled in 12 clinical studies investigating the efficacy of the extended-release tablet paliperidone ER (n1=490) and the once-monthly injection paliperidone palmitate (n2=550 and n3=350). We carried out a genome-wide association study using a general linear model (GLM) analysis on three separate cohorts, followed by meta-analysis and using a mixed linear model analysis on all samples. The variations in response explained by each single nucleotide polymorphism (hSNP) were estimated. RESULTS: No SNP passed genome-wide significance in the GLM-based analyses with suggestive signals from rs56240334 [P=7.97×10 for change in the Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity (CGI-S); P=8.72×10 for change in the total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)] in the intron of ADCK1. The mixed linear model-based association P-values for rs56240334 were consistent with the results from GLM-based analyses and the association with change in CGI-S (P=4.26×10) reached genome-wide significance (i.e. P<5×10). We also found suggestive evidence for a polygenic contribution toward paliperidone treatment response with estimates of heritability, hSNP, ranging from 0.31 to 0.43 for change in the total PANSS score, the PANSS positive Marder factor score, and CGI-S. CONCLUSION: Genetic variations in the ADCK1 gene may differentially predict paliperidone efficacy in schizophrenic patients. However, this finding should be replicated in additional samples.

Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly Treatment in Recent Onset and Chronic Illness Patients With Schizoaffective Disorder.

Data from a multiphase schizoaffective disorder study (NCT01193153) were used to examine the effects of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) by subjects' illness duration, defined as recent onset (≤5 years since first psychiatric diagnosis; n = 206) and chronic illness (>5 years; n = 461). Symptom and functioning scores, as measured during open-label PP1M acute and stabilization treatment phases, improved in both subpopulations, with greater improvements in recent onset than chronic illness subjects (p ≤ 0.022). Relapse rates, examined during the double-blind, placebo-controlled phase, were higher with placebo than PP1M: 30.0% vs. 10.2% (p = 0.014; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-7.12; p = 0.029) in the recent onset subpopulation and 35.5% vs. 18.1% (p = 0.001; HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.37-4.12; p = 0.002) in the chronic illness subpopulation. Growing evidence in the treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder supports early intervention with long-acting antipsychotics.

Treatment Patterns and Antipsychotic Medication Adherence Among Commercially Insured Patients With Schizoaffective Disorder in the United States.

This study assessed real-world treatment patterns and antipsychotic (AP) medication adherence among commercially insured US patients with schizoaffective disorder (SCA). Continuously insured adults aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of SCA from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012, were identified from the Clinformatics Data Mart database. Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts: incident or prevalent SCA. Demographics and clinical characteristics were evaluated during the baseline period. Use of psychiatric medications and adherence to AP medications were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period after index diagnosis of SCA. Of the overall study population (N = 2713; mean age, 40.2 y; 52.7% female), 1961 patients (72.3%) (mean age, 38.7 y; 51.3% female) had incident SCA, and 752 patients (27.7%) (mean age, 43.9 y; 56.5% female) had prevalent SCA. Antipsychotics were used by 74.8% of patients in the overall study population during the follow-up period. The most commonly prescribed oral AP was risperidone (23.9%), followed by quetiapine (21.4%) and aripiprazole (20.4%). Use of any long-acting injectable APs in the overall study population during the follow-up period was less than 3%. A total of 49.0% and 38.0% of the overall study population had medication possession ratios and proportion of days covered for APs of 80% or greater, respectively. Overall use of long-acting injectable APs for the treatment of SCA is low, and adherence to AP medications, measured by both medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered, is suboptimal among patients with SCA in the real-world setting.

Paliperidone Palmitate Once-Monthly Injectable Treatment for Acute Exacerbations of Schizoaffective Disorder.

The optimal treatment for schizoaffective disorder (SCA) is not well established. In this initial 6-month open-label treatment period of a large, multiphase, relapse-prevention study, the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) injectable were evaluated in subjects with symptomatic SCA. Subjects with acute exacerbation of SCA (ie, with psychotic and either depressive and/or manic symptoms) were enrolled and treated with PP1M either as monotherapy or in combination with antidepressants or mood stabilizers (combination therapy group). After flexible-dose treatment with PP1M for 13 weeks, stabilized subjects continued into a 12-week fixed-dose PP1M treatment period. A total of 667 subjects were enrolled; 320 received monotherapy and 347 received PP1M as combination therapy; 334 subjects completed the entire 25-week treatment. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed for all efficacy measures in psychosis (per Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale), mood symptoms (per Young Mania Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21 items), and functioning (per Personal and Social Performance Scale) from week 1 to all time points during the 25-week treatment period (P < 0.001). Similar improvements in efficacy measures were observed between subjects receiving monotherapy or combination therapy. Efficacy benefits persisted throughout the 25-week period. The most common adverse events were akathisia (11.1%), injection-site pain (10.6%), and insomnia (10.0%). Paliperidone palmitate once-monthly administered as monotherapy or in combination with mood stabilizers or antidepressants in patients with an acute exacerbation of SCA provided rapid, broad, and persistent reduction in psychotic, depressive, and manic symptoms, as well as improved functioning.

Large-scale candidate gene study to identify genetic risk factors predictive of paliperidone treatment response in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical response to antipsychotic medications can vary markedly in patients with schizophrenia. Identifying genetic variants associated with treatment response could help optimize patient care and outcome. To this end, we carried out a large-scale candidate gene study to identify genetic risk factors predictive of paliperidone efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A central nervous system custom chip containing single nucleotide polymorphisms from 1204 candidate genes was utilized to genotype a discovery cohort of 684 schizophrenia patients from four clinical studies of paliperidone extended-release and paliperidone palmitate. Variants predictive of paliperidone efficacy were identified and further tested in four independent replication cohorts of schizophrenic patients (N=2856). RESULTS: We identified an SNP in ERBB4 that may contribute toward differential treatment response to paliperidone. The association trended in the same direction as the discovery cohort in two of the four replication cohorts, but ultimately did not survive multiple testing corrections. The association was not replicated in the other two independent cohorts. We also report several SNPs in well-known schizophrenia candidate genes that show suggestive associations with paliperidone efficacy. CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings suggest that genetic variation in the ERBB4 gene may differentially affect treatment response to paliperidone in individuals with schizophrenia. They implicate the neuregulin 1 (NRG1)-ErbB4 pathway for modulating antipsychotic response. However, these findings were not robustly reproduced in replication cohorts.

Body mass index and metabolic parameters in patients with schizophrenia during long-term treatment with paliperidone palmitate.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong association between weight gain and metabolic events in patients with schizophrenia receiving many of the second-generation antipsychotic agents. We explored the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and metabolic events in patients with schizophrenia receiving long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate (PP) in a long-term trial. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a PP study that included a 33-week open-label transition (TR) and maintenance phase; a variable duration, randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled phase and a 52-week open-label extension (OLE) phase. Overall, 644 patients received PP continuously from study entry through discontinuation or study completion and were grouped by baseline BMI (kg/m2): underweight (BMI <19; n = 29, 4.5%), normal-weight (BMI 19- < 25; n = 229, 35.6%), overweight (BMI 25- < 30; n = 232, 36.0%) and obese (BMI ≥ 30; n = 154, 23.9%). Metabolic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and changes in related laboratory results from TR baseline were analyzed. RESULTS: PP exposure was similar across BMI groups; overall mean (SD) dose/month was 70.3 (17.17) mg eq. [109.6 (26.78) mg]; median duration of exposure was 204 days (6 to 1009 days). Occurrences of metabolic TEAEs overall by group were 0% (underweight), 14.9% (normal-weight), 14.7% (overweight), and 24.0% (obese). The most common (≥ 2%) metabolic TEAE were weight gain and elevated blood levels of glucose, lipids, and insulin. Mean BMI and weight increased in normal-weight and overweight groups at DB endpoint, and in underweight, normal-weight and overweight groups at OLE endpoint (p ≤ 0.05). No consistent trend for increased metabolic-related laboratory values by baseline BMI group was observed. Homeostatic model assessments for insulin resistance indicated preexisting insulin resistance at baseline, with minimal changes at OLE endpoint across baseline BMI groups. CONCLUSION: Occurrences of metabolic-related TEAEs trended with greater BMI status in patients with schizophrenia treated with PP; consistent trends in metabolic-related laboratory values were not observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 00518323).

Self-administered generational surveys combine with genetic analysis to reveal foundations of depression in Japanese adults.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a prevalent psychiatric illness characterized by mood disturbances and influenced by various environmental and genetic factors, yet its etiology remains largely unknown. METHODS: We profiled a self-reported depressive population in Japan with a focus on sociodemographic background, lifestyle, comorbidities, and genetic background, using data from two cohorts, a population-based cohort and a three-generation cohort, recruited by the Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization until December 2021. RESULTS: Our findings revealed that depression in the Japanese population is strongly associated with certain sociocultural features prevalent in Japan, such as social isolation, neuroticism, and introversion, as well as with well-known risk factors that include age and gender. Environmental factors related to the Great East Japan Earthquake, considered as cohort characteristics, were also strongly associated with the onset of depression. Moreover, using GWAS analysis of whole-genome sequencing data, we identified novel candidate genetic risk variants located on chromosomes 21 and 22 that are associated with depression in Japanese individuals; further validation of these risk variants is warranted. LIMITATIONS: Our study has limitations, including uncertain clinical relevance resulting from the use of self-reported questionnaires for depression assessment. Additionally, the cohort exhibited a population bias, with greater representation of women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide holistic insights into depression risk factors in Japanese adults, although their associations with depression are correlations. This supports the idea that targeted interventions and individualized approaches are important for addressing depression in the Japanese population.

Dynamic changes in body composition during XELOX/SOX chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer.

Objectives: In this study, we compared the dynamic changes in body composition during XELOX/SOX chemotherapy in patients with gastric cancer. Furthermore, we investigated the potential impact of these changes on the occurrence of toxic side effects. Methods: Patients with gastric cancer who received adjuvant or first-line XELOX/SOX chemotherapy between January 2020 and June 2023 were enrolled. The Brief Conghua Scale was used to assess energy intake, and nutritional management was carried out with reference to the Chinese Guidelines for Nutritional Therapy of Cancer 2020. The NRS 2002 Nutritional Risk Screening Scale, PG-SGA scale, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and dynamic changes in lumbar 3 vertebral skeletal muscle index were compared between baseline and post-chemotherapy in the study. The neutropenia was evaluated using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0, developed by the National Institutes of Health. Results: Dynamic follow-up was completed in 39 cases, with a mean follow-up time of 117.62 ± 43.38 days. The incidence of sarcopenia increased significantly after chemotherapy, escalating from 46.2% to 51.3%. After chemotherapy, the mean L3SMI decreased from 36.00 cm2/m2 to 34.99 cm2/m2. Furthermore, when compared to pre-chemotherapy values, the body composition indexes body mass index (BMI), SL3, fat mass free index (FFMI), lean body mass (LBM), and body surface area (BSA) were significantly reduced after chemotherapy. Regardless of baseline or post-chemotherapy status, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was significantly higher in the sarcopenia group than in the non-sarcopenia group. Furthermore, when the skeletal muscle index decreased during chemotherapy, the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was significantly higher in both the sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia groups compared to baseline. When the incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia in the post-chemotherapy sarcopenia group was compared to baseline status, the increase was significantly higher in the sarcopenia group than in the maintenance/increase group. Conclusions: Skeletal muscle mass decreased progressively during XELOX/SOX chemotherapy in gastric cancer patients, followed by a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia.

Long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate versus oral paliperidone extended release: a comparative analysis from two placebo-controlled relapse prevention studies.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability and use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics have generated a need to compare these formulations with their oral equivalents; however, a paucity of relevant data is available. METHODS: This post hoc comparison of the long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of maintenance treatment with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral paliperidone extended release (ER) used data from two similarly designed, randomised, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled schizophrenia relapse prevention trials. Assessments included measures of time to relapse, symptom changes/functioning and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Time to relapse between treatment groups was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Between-group differences for continuous variables for change scores during the DB phase were assessed using analysis of co-variance models. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. No adjustment was made for multiplicity. RESULTS: Approximately 45% of enrolled subjects in both trials were stabilised and randomised to the DB relapse prevention phase. Risk of relapse was higher in subjects treated with paliperidone ER than in those treated with PP [paliperidone ER/PP hazard ratio (HR), 2.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-4.35; p < 0.001]. Similarly, risk of relapse after withdrawal of paliperidone ER treatment (placebo group of the paliperidone ER study) was higher than after withdrawal of PP (paliperidone ER placebo/PP placebo HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.59-3.18; p < 0.001). Stabilised schizophrenic subjects treated with PP maintained functioning demonstrated by the same proportions of subjects with mild to no difficulties in functioning at DB baseline and end point [Personal and Social Performance (PSP) scale total score >70, both approximately 58.5%; p = 1.000] compared with a 10.9% decrease for paliperidone ER (58.5% vs 47.6%, respectively; p = 0.048). The least squares mean change for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at DB end point in these previously stabilised subjects was 3.5 points in favour of PP (6.0 vs 2.5; p = 0.025). The rates of TEAEs and AEs of interest appeared similar. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports maintenance of effect with the injectable compared with the oral formulation of paliperidone in patients with schizophrenia. The safety profile of PP was similar to that of paliperidone ER. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Suicide-specific mortality among patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, major depressive disorder with prior suicidal ideation or suicide attempts, or major depressive disorder alone.

BACKGROUND: The impact of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) or prior suicidal ideation/suicide attempt (SI/SA) on mortality by suicide among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) is not well known. This retrospective, observational, descriptive cohort study characterized real-world rates of suicide-specific mortality among patients with MDD with or without TRD or SI/SA. METHODS: Adult patients with MDD among commercially insured and Medicare enrollees in Optum Research Database were included and assigned to three cohorts: those with treatment-resistant MDD (TRD), those with MDD and SI/SA (MDD+SI/SA), and those with MDD without TRD or SI/SA (MDD alone). Suicide-specific mortality was obtained from the National Death Index. The effects of demographic characteristics and SI/SA in the year prior to the end of observation on suicide-specific mortality were assessed. RESULTS: For the 139,753 TRD, 85,602 MDD+SI/SA, and 572,098 MDD alone cohort patients, mean age ranged from 55 to 59 years and the majority were female. At baseline, anxiety disorders were present in 53.92%, 44.11%, and 21.72% of patients with TRD, MDD+SI/SA, and MDD alone, respectively. Suicide-mortality rates in the three cohorts were 0.14/100 person-years for TRD, 0.27/100 person-years for MDD+SI/SA, and 0.04/100 person-years for MDD alone. SI/SA during the year prior to the end of observation, younger age, and male sex were associated with increased suicide risk. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TRD and MDD+SI/SA have a heightened risk of mortality by suicide compared with patients with MDD alone. Suicide rates were higher in patients with recent history versus older or no history of SI/SA, men versus women, and those of young age versus older age.

Commentary on Cochrane review: "Ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators for depression in adults with unipolar major depressive disorder".

BACKGROUND: Cochrane recently published a review of esketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in depression. AIM: To address the limitations of the review, analyses of esketamine data were conducted to provide additional perspective to the reviewers' interpretation of their findings. METHODS: Response rate, remission rate, and change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score were determined using data from all esketamine phase 2/3 registration studies of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and, separately, all esketamine phase 2/3 registration studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and active suicidal ideation with intent. Outcomes were assessed at all timepoints (i.e., 24 h, 72 h (MDD with active suicidal intent only), and 1, 2, and 4 weeks). Enrollment criteria of the TRD studies were different than those of the studies of MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent, resulting in differences in patients' clinical characteristics and depression severity between the cohorts. Thus, we did not compare results between these cohorts (as was done in the Cochrane review). RESULTS/OUTCOMES: In the combined TRD studies, a statistically significant between-group difference favored esketamine plus antidepressant over antidepressant plus placebo at 24 h (based on response, remission, and change in MADRS score), 1 week (change in MADRS score), 2 weeks (response and change in MADRS score), and 4 weeks (response, remission, and change in MADRS score). In the combined studies of MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent, the between-group difference was statistically different, favoring esketamine plus standard-of-care over placebo plus standard-of-care, at 24 h (response, remission, and change in MADRS score), 72 h and 1 week (change in MADRS score), 2 weeks (response), and 4 weeks (response, remission, and change in MADRS score). For both study types, the between-group difference in outcomes was not statistically significant at the other timepoints. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Esketamine improves response, remission, and depressive symptoms as early as 24 h post-first dose among patients with TRD and among patients with MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent.

Efficacy and Safety of Flexibly Dosed Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus a Newly Initiated Oral Antidepressant in Adult Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Active-Controlled Study Conducted in China and USA.

Purpose: This Phase 3, multicenter study (NCT03434041) was conducted in primarily Chinese patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) to support the registration of esketamine nasal spray in China. Patients and Methods: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study was conducted in China and the United States (US) in patients with TRD (single or recurrent episode). Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intranasal esketamine or matching placebo, each in conjunction with a newly initiated oral antidepressant (AD; duloxetine, escitalopram, sertraline, and venlafaxine extended release) (ie, esketamine plus AD or AD plus placebo). The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at Day 28, was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Secondary endpoints including safety were also evaluated. Results: Of 252 randomized patients (China, 224; US, 28), 214 completed the double-blind treatment phase. The difference between treatment groups at Day 28 was not statistically significant (difference in least-square means [95% CI]: -2.0 [-4.64, 0.55]; 2-sided p = 0.123). However, esketamine plus AD demonstrated a clinically meaningful treatment difference compared with AD plus placebo in MADRS total score at 24 hours after first dose for the study overall population and China sub-population (difference in least-square mean [95% CI]: -3.3 [-5.33, -1.33] and -2.6 [-4.64, -0.60], respectively). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion: Esketamine plus AD was not statistically superior to AD plus placebo in improving depressive symptoms in TRD patients at Day 28. Rapid reduction in depressive symptoms within 24 hours was observed for TRD patients treated with esketamine plus AD in the overall population and China sub-population. Safety was consistent with the established safety profile of esketamine.

A Meta-Analysis of the Antidepressant Responses in Pivotal Trials on Esketamine Nasal Spray and Atypical Antipsychotics.

Purpose: This meta-analysis assessed whether atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) and esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS), which are mechanistically distinct, differ in antidepressant outcomes. Patients and Methods: Data were extracted from 12 trials of ESK-NS or AAPs in depressed patients (4276) with inadequate response or resistance to conventional antidepressants. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score reductions from baseline and response rates (≥50% reduction) were analyzed. Results: At endpoint, the estimated MADRS score reduction of pooled ESK-NS arms was greater than pooled AAP arms (+9.16 points, p < 0.0001). The reduction also was greater in the pooled control arms of the ESK-NS trials than the pooled control arms of the AAP trials (+7.57 points, p < 0.0001). The mean difference in the reductions between pooled ESK-NS and control arms was 1.87 points greater than that between pooled AAP and control arms, but this difference was not significant (95% CI: -4.49, 0.74, p = 0.16). Relative to their respective control arms, the mean difference in response rates was 25% for the pooled ESK-NS and 9% for the pooled AAP arms; the mean response rate was 16% greater in the pooled ESK-NS studies than the pooled AAP studies (p = 0.0004). Comparisons against specific AAPs showed mean differences in the MADRS score reductions at 1 week between the experimental and control arms that were numerically larger in the ESK-NS trials than in the aripiprazole trials (mean difference of 1.71 points, p = 0.06) and the brexpiprazole trials (mean difference of 2.05 points, p = 0.02). Conclusion: The ESK-NS arms showed numerically larger MADRS score reductions at week-1 and endpoint, and a significantly larger response rate compared with AAP arms. Prospective studies involving direct comparisons are warranted to compare the relative efficacy between these treatment regimens.