Meaningful Change Thresholds and Fatigue Severity Points on Patient-Reported Outcomes by the Fatigue Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire in Patients With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The Fatigue Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (FSIQ-RMS) is a new content-valid, concise, and reliable 20-item patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate the symptoms and impacts of fatigue in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Analyses were performed to derive meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) on patient-reported outcomes as measured by FSIQ-RMS and generate receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine fatigue severity cut points at baseline and change in severity at post-baseline and supplement the anchor-based MCT results. METHODS: Analyses were based on data from the OPTIMUM trial (NCT02425644). An anchor-based approach using uncollapsed changes on the Patient Global Impression of Severity at week 108 were used to determine the MCT for only the FSIQ-RMS Symptoms domain; distribution-based MCT estimations were conducted using baseline FSIQ-RMS Impacts scores. ROC curves with calculation of area under the curve were used to identify the best cut point. RESULTS: Based on the evidence provided by the anchor-based analyses using the Patient Global Impression of Severity as an anchor for the FSIQ-RMS Symptoms domain, meaningful score changes for improvement and deterioration were -6.3 and 6.3, respectively. Meaningful score changes for the FSIQ-RMS Physical, Cognitive/Emotional, and Coping Impacts domains using distribution-based methods were 10.8, 8.4, and 9.8, respectively. These results are supported by the ROC analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Thresholds to support interpretation of the FSIQ-RMS, such as MCTs, can be used to determine and categorize patients who have experienced a meaningful change in their MS-related fatigue (eg, responder analyses) in future clinical research studies.

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).

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.

The relevance of fatigue to relapse rate in multiple sclerosis: Applying patient preference data to the OPTIMUM trial.

BACKGROUND: In the OPTIMUM trial in patients with relapsing MS, treatment differences in annualized relapse rate (ARR, 0.088) and change in fatigue at week 108 (3.57 points, measured using the Fatigue Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, symptom domain (FSIQ-RMS-S)) favored ponesimod over teriflunomide. However, the importance of the fatigue outcome to patients was unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of the OPTIMUM FSIQ-RMS-S results using data from an MS discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: The DCE included components to correlate levels of physical and cognitive fatigue with FSIQ-RMS-S scores. Changes in relapses/year and time to MS progression equivalent to the treatment difference in fatigue in OPTIMUM were determined for similar fatigue levels as mean baseline fatigue in OPTIMUM. RESULTS: DCE participants would accept 0.06 more relapses/year or a 0.15-0.17 year decrease in time to MS progression for a 3.57-point difference in physical fatigue on the FSIQ-RMS-S. To improve cognitive fatigue by 3.57-points on the FSIQ-RMS-S, DCE participants would accept 0.09-0.10 more relapses/year or a 0.24-0.28 year decrease in time to MS progression. CONCLUSION: MS patients would accept 0.06 more relapses/year to change their fatigue by a similar magnitude as the between-treatment difference observed in the OPTIMUM trial.

SIBAT-A Computerized Assessment Tool for Suicide Ideation and Behavior: Development and Psychometric Properties.

Objective: Most assessments of suicidal ideation and behavior (SIB) are limited by reliance on a single assessor, typically a clinician or patient, with scant detail on patient-related drivers of SIB and inability to detect rapid change in SIB. Furthermore, many techniques do not include a semistructured interview, increasing rater variability. The Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) addresses these limitations. Design: More than 30 experts in scale development, statistics, and clinical management of suicidal patients collaborated over a greater than four-year period to develop the SIBAT. Input for content and validity was received from patients, clinicians, and regulatory authorities in the United States (US) and Europe. Psychometric properties of the SIBAT were evaluated in validation studies. Results: The SIBAT is organized into eight independent patient- or clinician-rated modules with branching logic and scoring algorithms, which necessitates computerization. Patient-reported information is first captured in Modules 1 to 5. Thereafter, an experienced clinician reviews the patient's report, conducts a semistructured interview (Module 6), and assesses the patient's suicide risk (Module 7) and optimal antisuicide management (Module 8). Input from cognitive interviews of diverse adult, adolescent, and clinician participants was incorporated into the final version of the SIBAT. Psychometric testing demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (intraclass coefficient range: 0.68-0.82), intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range: 0.64-0.76), and concurrent validity with other instruments for assessing SIB. Conclusion: Patient- and clinician-based assessments and the psychometric studies summarized in this report support the validity and reliability of the SIBAT for capturing critical information related to assessment of SIB in adolescents and adults at risk for suicide.

Development of a novel patient-reported outcome measure to assess signs and symptoms of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Given the urgent need for vaccines and treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC), a comprehensive, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of signs and symptoms associated with COVID-19, was developed in full alignment with current US regulatory guidance to support evaluations of vaccines and treatments in development. METHODS: An initial version of the SIC was developed to address concepts identified through a targeted literature review and consultation with experts in infectious diseases and clinicians routinely managing COVID-19 in a hospital setting. A qualitative study was conducted in sites in the United States among 31 participants aged ≥ 18 years who were English-speaking and willing and able to provide informed consent and a self-reported history by telephone or online method. The measure was refined based on additional feedback from the clinicians and three iterative rounds of combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews conducted with patients, caregivers, and healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Among 39 scientific articles identified in the literature review, 35 COVID-19 signs and symptoms were reported and confirmed during interviews with clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Patients and healthy participants suggested changes for refining the draft SIC to ensure consistent interpretation and endorsed both the 24-h recall period and use of an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) for capturing change in symptom severity. The final version of the SIC captures the daily presence or absence of 30 symptoms and a rating of severity for 25 of the 30 symptoms using an NRS for those symptoms reported as present. CONCLUSIONS: The SIC comprehensively addresses observations described in the literature, by clinicians, and by patients, and captures patients' experiences with COVID-19 in a manner that minimizes complexity and facilitates completion for both patients and healthy volunteers. This measure is thus appropriate for use in clinical trials of both therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.

Assessing the meaningful change threshold of Quality of Life in Depression Scale using data from two phase 3 studies of esketamine nasal spray.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) directly impacts patients' lives including symptoms, functioning and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Patient-reported outcomes can capture these impacts, however interpretation of clinical meaningfulness of these measurements are often not readily available. Meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) can be derived for clinical outcome assessments to quantify the change in symptoms that is meaningful to the patient following pharmacologic treatment or other interventions. The objective of this analysis was to determine the within-patient MCT of the self-reported Quality-of-Life in Depression Scale (QLDS) among patients with MDD and active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI) using an anchor-based approach. METHODS: Data from 2 randomized phase-3 trials of esketamine nasal spray (ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II) were analyzed. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was the primary anchor with three different severity criteria. Other anchor variables utilized were Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Suicidality-revised version, Clinical Global Impression of Imminent Suicide Risk, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale [EQ-VAS]. Spearman correlation coefficients between the change in QLDS and anchor variables were calculated. The mean change in QLDS score at Day 25 from baseline was calculated based on the categorical change in the anchor. Coefficient yield from linear regression of the mean changes in EQ-VAS and QLDS, and distribution-based approach with ½ SD of change in QLDS were considered. RESULTS: In ASPIRE I, mean (SD) improvement in QLDS score among patients with one category improvement in MADRS from baseline to Day 25 was - 8.22 (8.87), - 8.30 (9.01), and - 8.20 (8.92) using severity criteria #1, #2, and #3, respectively. Patients who achieved a 7-point improvement (MCT) in EQ-VAS yielded a mean - 9.69-point improvement in QLDS at Day 25. The ½ SD of change in QLDS was 5.63. Similar results were obtained for ASPIRE II. The MCTs identified using multiple anchors across both trials ranged from - 11.4 to - 6.7 and had an overall mean of - 7.90 (ASPIRE I) and - 7.92 (ASPIRE II). Thus, an 8-point change was recommended as the MCT for QLDS. CONCLUSION: The recommended MCT will help quantify within-person changes in HRQoL using patient-reported QLDS and determine meaningful treatment benefit in an MDD patient population with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ASPIRE I (NCT03039192), ASPIRE II (NCT03097133). Date of registration: February 01, 2017; March 31, 2017. URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03039192 ; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03097133 .

Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale factors in treatment-resistant depression at onset of treatment: Derivation, replication, and change over time during treatment with esketamine.

OBJECTIVE: Derive and confirm factor structure of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and evaluate how the factors evident at baseline change over 4 weeks of esketamine treatment. METHODS: Two similarly-designed, short-term TRANSFORM trials randomized adults to esketamine or matching placebo nasal spray, each with a newly-initiated oral antidepressant, for 4 weeks (TRANSFORM-1: N = 342 patients; TRANSFORM-2: N = 223 patients). The factor structure of MADRS item scores at baseline was determined by exploratory factor analysis in TRANSFORM-2 and corroborated by confirmatory factor analysis in TRANSFORM-1. Change in MADRS factor scores from baseline (day 1) to the end of the 28-day double-blind treatment phase of TRANSFORM-2 was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). RESULTS: Three factors were identified based on analysis of MADRS items: Factor 1 labeled affective and anhedonic symptoms (apparent sadness, reported sadness, lassitude, inability to feel), Factor 2 labeled anxiety and vegetative symptoms (inner tension, reduced sleep, reduced appetite, concentration difficulties), and Factor 3 labeled hopelessness (pessimistic thoughts, suicidal thoughts). The three-factor structure observed in TRANSFORM-2 was verified in TRANSFORM-1. Treatment benefit at 24 h with esketamine versus placebo was observed on all 3 factors and continued throughout the 4-week double-blind treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: A three-factor structure for MADRS appears to generalize to TRD. All three factors improved over 4 weeks of treatment with esketamine nasal spray.

Use of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) to Assess Response to Antidepressant Treatment in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Background: This post-hoc analysis evaluated the agreement between Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) score- and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score-based assessment of response in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treated with esketamine nasal spray plus a newly initiated oral antidepressant (ESK-NS + AD). Methods: Data were analyzed from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (TRANSFORM-2) of flexibly dosed esketamine or placebo nasal spray plus a newly initiated oral-AD in adults with moderate-to-severe TRD. Patients with ≥50% reduction in MADRS from baseline at the end of the 4-week acute treatment phase were defined as responders. For the CGI-S-based assessment of response, patients with ≥2 points decrease from baseline or a CGI-S score of ≤3 (mildly depressed to normal) were considered responders. Cohen's kappa coefficient was calculated to assess level of agreement between MADRS and CGI-S-based assessments. Results: At the end of 4-week treatment, the proportion of responders among all study patients (n=201) was similar when assessed using the MADRS (61%) and CGI-S (62%) methods, with substantial agreement (Cohen's kappa=0.76; sensitivity=92%; specificity=84%) between both methods. When restricting analysis to ESK-NS + AD-treated patients (n=101) who had a higher response rate (on MADRS: 69%; on CGI-S: 68%), the agreement remained substantial (Cohen's kappa=0.75; sensitivity=91%; specificity=84%). Conclusion: The CGI-S may be a practical and reliable alternative to the MADRS to assess response to ESK-NS + AD in patients with TRD and can be used in real-world practice to support informed treatment decisions.

Evaluation of Individual Items of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Adults with Treatment-Resistant Depression Treated with Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined with a New Oral Antidepressant.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine which symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) improve in those treated with esketamine nasal spray in combination with oral antidepressant (AD) compared with those treated with placebo plus AD for adult patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). These results complement the interpretation of PHQ-9 and MADRS total scores. METHODS: The TRANSFORM 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray in combination with AD. This post-hoc analysis used PHQ-9 and MADRS data to evaluate symptom changes. The total scores change and proportions of individual item change scores on the PHQ-9 and MADRS were evaluated at days 15 and 28; analysis of variance was used to test differences on total scores. Generalized estimation equations of logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of improvement on instrument items. RESULTS: The mean total score reduction of the PHQ-9, indicating improvement, was greater in the esketamine plus AD arm compared with placebo plus AD at day 15 (- 1.8; p = 0.045) and day 28 (- 2.8; p = 0.006). Proportions of those who improved (≥ 1 point on a 4-point scale and ≥ 2 points on a 7-point scale for the PHQ-9 and MADRS, respectively) was greater in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group across all items. The odds of improving for those in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group were over two times greater on the PHQ-9 items: "Little interest/pleasure in things" (OR 2.252, 95% CI 1.165-4.355); "Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless" (OR 2.767, 95% CI 1.400-5.470); and "Feeling tired or having little energy" (OR 2.171, 95% CI 1.153-4.087). The mean reduction in total scores on the MADRS, indicating improvement, was numerically greater at day 15 (- 2.0; p = 0.189) and statistically significantly greater at day 28 (- 4.4; p = 0.017) in the esketamine plus AD arm compared with placebo plus AD. The odds of improving for those in the esketamine plus AD group compared with the placebo plus AD group were over two times greater on the MADRS items measuring "Apparent sadness" (OR 2.007, 95% CI 1.096-3.674); and "Inability to feel" (OR 2.099, 95% CI 1.180-3.735). CONCLUSION: Improvement in mean total scores in those treated with esketamine plus AD compared with placebo plus AD are important results to confirm efficacy. The odds of improving in those treated with esketamine plus AD was at least two times greater than with placebo plus AD on three patient- and two clinician-reported individual symptoms of TRD. These findings provide patient-relevant quantification of the esketamine plus AD treatment benefit, adding understanding as to which symptoms are most improved with treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02418585; first posted 16 April 2015.

A novel disease specific scale to characterize the symptoms and impacts of fatigue in US adults with relapsing multiple sclerosis: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is among the most frequent and disabling symptoms in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). OBJECTIVE: To measure MS fatigue and its impact on daily life in a real-world US population using an MS-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument, the Fatigue Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire-RMS (FSIQ-RMS). METHODS: This ongoing prospective study recruited RMS patients from an online patient community (Carenity) across US. Baseline assessment data are reported. Participants completed questionnaires, including the 20-item FSIQ-RMS questionnaire, with the first seven symptom-related items collected daily for seven days, and the other 13 items on the seventh day assessing impacts of fatigue. The FSIQ-RMS scores range from 0 to 100 (higher score=greater severity). The impact of fatigue on several aspects of patients' lives was rated from 0 (no impact) to 10 (very high impact). Data on disease history, disease status, sleep, social and emotional functioning were also captured. Baseline assessment data of 300 RMS patients are reported while follow-up assessments up to 18 months are planned. RESULTS: 300 RMS participants completed the 7-day assessment (mean age 43.0 years, 88% women). Fatigue was rated as severe, with a mean score of 57.3 for the FSIQ-RMS symptom domain; 3 impact sub-domain scores were 42.3, 43.4 and 50.1 (physical, cognitive/emotional, and coping). Participants who were not in relapse (78%) reported less severe fatigue than those in relapse (22%): mean±SD symptom score of 54.6 ± 17.8 vs. 67.0 ± 19.7, p< 0.001. Fatigue had a higher intensity among those with depression than without (49% vs. 51%, with mean ± SD symptom score of 62.8 ± 16.9 vs. 52.1 ± 19.3, p< 0.001), and among those with sleep disorder than without (27% vs. 73%, 61.2 ± 19.2 vs. 55.9 ± 18.6; p< 0.05). The most common factor associated with increased fatigue was heat exposure (82%). Most participants (52%) reported experiencing fatigue before their MS diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Fatigue influences daily functioning for most patients with RMS. The FSIQ-RMS is a novel and MS-specific PRO measure that can advance the understanding and management of fatigue.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative: Experience with Integration of Patient-Experience Data in a New Drug Application for Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus a Newly Initiated Oral Antidepressant for Treatment-Resistant Depression.

The Patient-Focused Drug Development initiative of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aims to ensure that the patient experience of disease and treatment is an integral component of the drug development process. The 21st Century Cures Act and Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI require the FDA to publicly report the type of patient-experience data reviewed in a new drug application (NDA) to inform regulatory decision-making. This report describes a recent approach adopted at Janssen of integrating patient-experience data into the NDA for esketamine (SPRAVATO®) nasal spray with a newly initiated oral antidepressant (esketamine + AD) for treatment-resistant depression. During the development of esketamine + AD, patient-experience data were collected using several patient-reported outcomes, including the Sheehan Disability Scale and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Additionally, a patient-preference study assessed the relative importance of benefits and harms that patients allocated to different attributes of treatment. Preferences were collected from patients enrolled in phase 3 esketamine trials and from an online panel of primarily ketamine-naive patients. Patient-experience data were integrated into the esketamine NDA, the FDA advisory committee meeting briefing document, and the Sponsor's presentation. The FDA acknowledged reviewing the patient-experience data and determined that they supported esketamine + AD for treatment-resistant depression. This report highlights the importance of integrating patient-experience methods early in drug development, their impact on assessing patient-relevant benefits and risks, and how they can help improve clinical program design.

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.

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.

Meaningful Change in Depression Symptoms Assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) Among Patients with Treatment Resistant Depression in Two, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled Trials of Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined With a New Oral Antidepressant.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depressive disorder who do not respond to ≥2 different pharmacological treatments within the current depressive episode are considered to have treatment resistant depression (TRD). This analysis determined meaningful change thresholds (MCT) of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) using anchor-based methods and compared proportions of meaningful changes in patients with TRD across treatment groups from two Phase 3 trials for esketamine nasal spray (SPRAVATOTM). METHODS: Data from two Phase 3 trials in patients with TRD, TRANSFORM-1 and -2, were used in this analysis. The MCTs for the PHQ-9 and MADRS were derived using a clinician global impression of severity anchor. Blinded probability density functions displayed score distributions between anchor categories. Proportions of meaningful response were compared between treatment groups using chi-square tests supported by unblinded cumulative distribution functions of change scores. RESULTS: Baseline scores were similar for the PHQ-9 and MADRS between the esketamine/antidepressant (AD) and AD/placebo groups. The most appropriate MCT on the PHQ-9 was -6 points. By Day 28, 86.5% of patients reached or exceeded the PHQ-9 MCT in the esketamine/AD group compared to 70% in the placebo/AD group. The most appropriate MCT for the MADRS was -10 points. By Day 28, 78.2% of patients reached or exceeded the MADRS MCT in the esketamine/AD group compared to 65.0% in the placebo/AD group. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level meaningful change for the PHQ-9 and MADRS was effectively quantified using a clinical anchor to interpret efficacy from patients with TRD and their treating clinicians.

Clinically meaningful changes on depressive symptom measures and patient-reported outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant depression.

OBJECTIVE: To use the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale to estimate clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as measured using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: Pooled data were derived from two 4-week, randomized, active-controlled studies evaluating esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus oral antidepressant (OAD) or OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) in adults with TRD (N = 565). CGI-S, MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 scores were obtained at baseline and over 4 weeks of treatment. In this post hoc analysis, change scores on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9 that corresponded to a clinically meaningful (1-point) or clinically substantial (2-point) change on the CGI-S scale were identified. RESULTS: Clinically meaningful changes in CGI-S scores after 28 days corresponded to 6-, 4-, and 3-point changes from baseline on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. Similarly, a 2-point CGI-S score change (clinically substantial change) corresponded to a 12-, 8-, and 6-point change on the MADRS, SDS, and PHQ-9, respectively. The proportion of patients showing substantial clinical improvement in the ESK plus OAD group versus the OAD plus PBO group after 28 days of treatment favored ESK plus OAD: 69.0% vs 55.3% (MADRS), 64.5% vs 48.9% (SDS), and 77.1% vs 64.7% (PHQ-9). CONCLUSION: We provide a basis for identifying clinically meaningful and clinically substantial changes as assessed with commonly used outcome measures for depression to facilitate the translation of clinical trial results into clinical practice.

Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT): Evaluation of Intra- and Inter-Rater Reliability, Validity, and Mapping to Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment.

The psychometric properties of the Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool (SIBAT) were evaluated in 130 participants with varying levels of suicidality. Inter- and intra-rater reliability were assessed for clinician-rated outcomes, including the revised Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) of severity of suicidality (CGI-SS-r). Concurrent validity of patient-reported modules with Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scale and Sheehan-Suicidality Tracking Scale Clinically Meaningful Change Measure (S-STS CMCM), and concordance between Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA) mappings for SIBAT, S-STS CMCM and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) were assessed. 52/130 participants (mean [SD] age: 38.3 [17.77] years) consented for multiple interviews (C-CASA mappings: n=52; rater-reliability: n=25/52). SIBAT demonstrated good intra-rater reliability (weighted-kappa range:0.64-0.76; CGI-SS-r, 0.75) and adequate inter-rater reliability (ICC range:0.68-0.82; CGI-SS-r, 0.81). There were strong correlations between PROMIS depression scores and SIBAT Module 5 ratings (Spearman correlations, r=0.64-0.74) and moderate correlations (r=0.29-0.72) between S-STS CMCM and SIBAT Modules 2, 3 and 5 ratings. Moderate agreement was noted between SIBAT C-CASA mappings and corresponding mappings from S-STS CMCM (weighted kappa: 0.54) and C-SSRS (weighted kappa: 0.56). Thus, the SIBAT provided valid assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior that could be reliably rated and adequately mapped to the C-CASA.

Self-reported review of the value of esketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression: Understanding the patient experience in the STRIVE Study.

Esketamine nasal spray (ESK) is indicated, in conjunction with an oral antidepressant (OAD), for the management of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in adults. Select US-based patients from an open-label, long-term extension safety study of ESK (NCT02782104) participated in this study through semi-structured interviews. The study evaluated patient-reported early health changes related to emotional health, daily functioning, and social functioning in adults with TRD treated with ESK plus OAD. Eligible patients were responders to ESK who had begun initial ESK treatment ≤30 months before enrollment and were currently receiving ESK plus OAD. Results from 23 patients (9 men, 14 women; mean age, 46 years) were analyzed. Patients described the degree to which ESK treatment changed the effects of depression on aspects of health as either being much improved or improved (91.8%, 156/170). Key characteristics noted regarding treatment with ESK plus OAD included degree of effectiveness (n = 11), rapid onset of action (n = 7), and side-effect profile (n = 5). All patients reported being either satisfied (52%) or very satisfied (48%) with ESK plus OAD treatment. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of ESK. Study insights may help prepare patients with TRD and their clinicians to anticipate potential health changes experienced with ESK.

Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale: Performance of a Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measure.

BACKGROUND: The Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale (SMDDS) was expressly developed on the basis of qualitative data to directly incorporate patients' voices into evaluation of treatment benefit in major depressive disorder (MDD) clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To collect quantitative data necessary to refine/optimize the SMDDS and document its psychometric properties. METHODS: In this multicenter, observational study, participants with clinically diagnosed MDD completed questionnaires in 2 waves. Wave 1 was designed to refine the SMDDS using Rasch measurement evaluations and item reduction analyses. On a subset of wave 1 subjects, 7 to 12 months later, wave 2 further examined item performance and measurement properties. Exploratory factor analyses and assessments of construct validity and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were completed. RESULTS: Using wave 1 data (N = 315; females = 71%, white = 81%, mean age = 44 years), the SMDDS was revised from 36 to 16 items. The Rasch item threshold map indicated that all but 1 item (suicidal ideation) were appropriately ordered. The 207 wave 2 participants were 74% females, 82% white, with a mean age of 45 years. The exploratory factor analyses resulted in a single component (all standardized factor loadings >0.46). Cronbach α was 0.93 and the 7-day test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (n = 93) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.89). SMDDS scores discriminated between MDD severity levels. CONCLUSIONS: The 16-item SMDDS generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. On the basis of the evidence of appropriate content validity and sound psychometric performance, the Food and Drug Administration qualified the SMDDS as an outcome measure to support exploratory efficacy endpoints in MDD clinical trials.

Analysis of Clinical Trial Exit Interview Data in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcome assessments may not fully capture patients' perspectives of treatment benefit or tolerability. Incorporating individual exit interviews might enhance the description of the patient experience of drug effects. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the patient treatment experience in a clinical trial of treatment-resistant depression utilizing exit interview methodology. METHODS: Individual patient interviews were conducted with subjects exiting two phase II clinical trials involving investigational agents for treatment-resistant depression. Interviews included standardized questions about patients' perceptions of health changes and interest in continued use of the investigational agent. Constant comparative analysis of blinded data was used to identify, code, and categorize the data followed by a subsequent analysis of unblinded data to evaluate any potential treatment differences. RESULTS: Ninety subjects completed exit interviews across the two trials. Most subjects (90%, Trial 2001; 74%, Trial 2002) reported at least one health change. Most subjects rated these changes to be at least moderately important, with most being rated "very important" to "extremely important." After unblinding, participants receiving active therapy alone reported most of the positive health changes (80% of overall positive changes in Trial 2001, 89% in Trial 2002), whereas patients taking placebo alone reported the majority of negative health changes (57% in Trial 2002). Positive changes included not only anticipated changes in mood but also potential cognitive benefits such as mental alertness, improved sleep, and better concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized interview data provided direct patient insight into the treatment experience from the patient perspective. Data from these interviews assisted in phase III endpoint selection by providing data on relevant concepts in the target treatment-resistant depression population receiving a new treatment, thus enabling the selection of tools to capture noted treatment effects and, by eliminating irrelevant constructs or measures, thereby reducing data "noise." TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01640080; NCT01627782.