Efficacy and Safety of Flexibly Dosed Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined With a Newly Initiated Oral Antidepressant in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Double-Blind Active-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants. This study compared the efficacy and safety of switching patients with treatment-resistant depression from an ineffective antidepressant to flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray plus a newly initiated antidepressant or to a newly initiated antidepressant (active comparator) plus placebo nasal spray. METHODS: This was a phase 3, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter study conducted at 39 outpatient referral centers. The study enrolled adults with moderate to severe nonpsychotic depression and a history of nonresponse to at least two antidepressants in the current episode, with one antidepressant assessed prospectively. Confirmed nonresponders were randomly assigned to treatment with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg twice weekly) and an antidepressant or antidepressant and placebo nasal spray. The primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline to day 28 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, was assessed by a mixed-effects model using repeated measures. RESULTS: Of 435 patients screened, 227 underwent randomization and 197 completed the 28-day double-blind treatment phase. Change in MADRS score with esketamine plus antidepressant was significantly greater than with antidepressant plus placebo at day 28 (difference of least square means=-4.0, SE=1.69, 95% CI=-7.31, -0.64); likewise, clinically meaningful improvement was observed in the esketamine plus antidepressant arm at earlier time points. The five most common adverse events (dissociation, nausea, vertigo, dysgeusia, and dizziness) all were observed more frequently in the esketamine plus antidepressant arm than in the antidepressant plus placebo arm; 7% and 0.9% of patients in the respective treatment groups discontinued study drug because of an adverse event. Adverse events in the esketamine plus antidepressant arm generally appeared shortly after dosing and resolved by 1.5 hours after dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatment options for treatment-resistant depression have considerable limitations in terms of efficacy and patient acceptability. Esketamine is expected to address an unmet medical need in this population through its novel mechanism of action and rapid onset of antidepressant efficacy. The study supports the efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray as a rapidly acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression.

Are Patients with Childhood Onset of Insomnia and Depression More Difficult to Treat Than Are Those with Adult Onsets of These Disorders? A Report from the TRIAD Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients with childhood onsets (CO) of both major depression and insomnia disorder show blunted depression and insomnia treatment responses to concurrent interventions for both disorders compared to those with adult onsets (AO) of both conditions. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data obtained from a multisite randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy of combining a psychological/behavior insomnia therapy with antidepressant medication to enhance depression treatment outcomes in patients with comorbid major depression and insomnia. This study included 27 adults with CO of depression and insomnia and 77 adults with AO of both conditions. They underwent a 16-week treatment including: (1) a standardized two-step pharmacotherapy for depression algorithm, consisting of escitalopram, sertraline, and desvenlafaxine in a prescribed sequence; and (2) either cognitive behavioral insomnia therapy (CBT-I) or a quasi-desensitization control (CTRL) therapy. Main outcome measures were the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) completed pre-treatment and every 2 weeks thereafter. RESULTS: The AO and CO groups did not differ significantly in regard to their pre-treatment HRSD-17 and ISI scores. Mixed model analyses that adjusted for the number of insomnia treatment sessions attended showed that the AO group achieved significantly lower, subclinical scores on the HRSD-17 and ISI than did the CO group by the time of study exit. Moreover, a significant group by treatment arm interaction suggested that HRSD-17 scores at study exit remained significantly higher in the CO group receiving the CTRL therapy than was the case for the participants in the CO group receiving CBT-I. Greater proportions of the AO group achieved a priori criteria for remission of insomnia (49.3% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.04) and depression (45.5% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.07) than did those in the CO group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with comorbid depression and insomnia who experienced the first onset of both disorders in childhood are less responsive to the treatments offered herein than are those with adult onsets of these comorbid disorders. Further research is needed to identify therapies that enhance the depression and insomnia treatment responses of those with childhood onsets of these two conditions.

"Barriers to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Homework Completion Scale- Depression Version": Development and Psychometric Evaluation.

We conducted a two-phase study to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of an instrument to identify barriers to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) homework completion in a depressed sample. In Phase I, we developed an item pool by interviewing 20 depressed patients and 20 CBT therapists. In Phase II, we created and administered a draft instrument to 56 people with depression. Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed a 2-factor oblique solution of "Patient Factors" and "Therapy/Task Factors." Internal consistency coefficients ranged from .80 to .95. Temporal stability was demonstrated through Pearson correlations of .72 (for the therapist/task subscale) to .95 (for the patient subscale) over periods of time that ranged from 2 days to 3 weeks. The patient subscale was able to satisfactorily classify patients (75 to 79 %) with low and high adherence at both sessions. Specificity was .66 at both time points. Sensitivity was .80 at sessions B and .77 at session C. There were no consistent predictors of assignment compliance when measured by the Assignment Compliance Rating Scale (Primakoff, Epstein, & Covi, 1986). The Rating Scale and subscale scores did, however, correlate significantly with assignment non-compliance (.32 to .46).