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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: In this post-hoc analysis, data from 2 positive, pivotal, phase 3 trials of esketamine nasal spray (ESK) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD)-short-term study (TRANSFORM-2) and maintenance study (SUSTAIN-1)-were analyzed to evaluate the relationship between dissociation and antidepressant effects of ESK. METHODS: Analysis by responder status, correlation analysis, and mediation analysis were performed to assess the relationships between peak Clinician Administered Dissociative States Scale (CADSS) scores after first (day 1) and last (day 25) ESK dose and change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores at the first (day 2) and last assessments (day 28) in TRANSFORM-2 and peak CADSS after first maintenance ESK dose and time to relapse in SUSTAIN-1 (only for mediation analysis). RESULTS: In TRANSFORM-2, the percentage of responders (>50% reduction in MADRS) at day 2 and day 28 did not significantly differ between patients who did vs did not manifest significant dissociation (peak CADSS scores >4 or ≤4, respectively) following the first ESK dose. Spearman correlation coefficients between dissociation and depression improvement were nonsignificant and close to zero. CADSS scores did not significantly mediate the reduction in MADRS at day 2 or 28 in TRANSFORM-2 or the time to depression relapse in SUSTAIN-1. The mean difference in MADRS between ESK and active-control arms persisted beyond day 2 without significant change across time, although the mean peak CADSS scores significantly decreased across consecutive doses and fewer patients experienced significant dissociation after the last ESK dose compared with the first. CONCLUSION: Within the dose range tested, the dissociative and antidepressant effects of ESK were not significantly correlated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02417064 (TRANSFORM-1); NCT02418585(TRANSFORM-2); NCT02493868 (SUSTAIN-1).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Continual reassessment method with regularization in phase I clinical trials.

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

Esketamine Nasal Spray for Rapid Reduction of Major Depressive Disorder Symptoms in Patients Who Have Active Suicidal Ideation With Intent: Double-Blind, Randomized Study (ASPIRE I).

OBJECTIVE: To compare esketamine to placebo, each in addition to standard-of-care treatment, for rapidly reducing major depressive disorder symptoms, including suicidal ideation. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study (ASPIRE I), conducted between June 2017 and December 2018, enrolled 226 adults having major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition (DSM-5) criteria, active suicidal ideation with intent, and need for psychiatric hospitalization. Patients were randomized 1:1 to esketamine 84 mg or placebo nasal spray twice-weekly for 4 weeks, each with comprehensive standard-of-care treatment (initial psychiatric hospitalization and newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant[s] therapy). Change from baseline to 24 hours post-first dose in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (primary endpoint) was analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and change in Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Suicidality Revised version (CGI-SS-r; key secondary endpoint) score was analyzed using ANCOVA on ranks with treatment difference estimated using the Hodges-Lehmann estimate. RESULTS: Greater improvement in MADRS total score was observed with esketamine + standard-of-care versus placebo + standard-of-care at 24 hours (least-squares mean difference [SE]: -3.8 [1.39]; 95% CI, -6.56 to -1.09; 2-sided P = .006), as well as at earlier (4 hours) and later time points during 4-week double-blind treatment. The difference between groups in the severity of suicidality was not statistically significant (median of treatment difference [95% CI]: 0.0 [-1.00 to 0.00]; 2-sided P = .107). The most common adverse events among esketamine-treated patients were dizziness, dissociation, headache, nausea, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate rapid and robust efficacy of esketamine nasal spray in reducing depressive symptoms in severely ill patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicidal ideation with intent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03039192.

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.

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Fixed-Dose Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined With a New Oral Antidepressant in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Study (TRANSFORM-1).

BACKGROUND: About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: This Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested. RESULTS: Statistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Efficacy of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant Treatment for Relapse Prevention in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Controlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established. Objective: To assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase. Interventions: Patients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test. Results: Among the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P = .003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P < .001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (<7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493868.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine for the Rapid Reduction of Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality in Patients at Imminent Risk for Suicide: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

(Reprinted with permission from AmJ Psychiatry 2018; 175:620-630).

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine for the Rapid Reduction of Symptoms of Depression and Suicidality in Patients at Imminent Risk for Suicide: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared the efficacy of standard-of-care treatment plus intranasal esketamine or placebo for rapid reduction of symptoms of major depression, including suicidality, among individuals at imminent suicide risk. METHOD: In a double-blind, multicenter, proof-of-concept study, 68 participants were randomly assigned to receive esketamine (84 mg) or placebo twice weekly for 4 weeks, in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in score from baseline to 4 hours after initial dose on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Clinician global judgment of suicide risk (from the Suicide Ideation and Behavior Assessment Tool) was also assessed. Secondary endpoints included these measures at 24 hours and double-blind endpoint at day 25. RESULTS: A significantly greater improvement in MADRS score was observed in the esketamine group compared with the placebo group at 4 hours (least-square mean difference=-5.3, SE=2.10; effect size=0.61) and at ∼24 hours (least-square mean difference=-7.2, SE=2.85; effect size=0.65), but not at day 25 (least-square mean difference=-4.5, SE=3.14; effect size=0.35). Significantly greater improvement was also observed in the esketamine group on the MADRS suicidal thoughts item score at 4 hours (effect size=0.67), but not at 24 hours (effect size=0.35) or at day 25 (effect size=0.29). Between-group reductions in clinician global judgment of suicide risk scores were not statistically different at any time point. The most common adverse events among participants in the esketamine group were nausea, dizziness, dissociation, unpleasant taste, and headache. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings indicate that intranasal esketamine compared with placebo, given in addition to comprehensive standard-of-care treatment, may result in significantly rapid improvement in depressive symptoms, including some measures of suicidal ideation, among depressed patients at imminent risk for suicide.

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine Adjunctive to Oral Antidepressant Therapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Approximately one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to available antidepressants. Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and dose-response of intranasal esketamine hydrochloride in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, double-blind, doubly randomized, delayed-start, placebo-controlled study was conducted in multiple outpatient referral centers from January 28, 2014, to September 25, 2015. The study consisted of 4 phases: (1) screening, (2) double-blind treatment (days 1-15), composed of two 1-week periods, (3) optional open-label treatment (days 15-74), and (4) posttreatment follow-up (8 weeks). One hundred twenty-six adults with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of MDD and history of inadequate response to 2 or more antidepressants (ie, TRD) were screened, 67 were randomized, and 60 completed both double-blind periods. Intent-to-treat analysis was used in evaluation of the findings. Interventions: In period 1, participants were randomized (3:1:1:1) to placebo (n = 33), esketamine 28 mg (n = 11), 56 mg (n = 11), or 84 mg (n = 12) twice weekly. In period 2, 28 placebo-treated participants with moderate-to-severe symptoms were rerandomized (1:1:1:1) to 1 of the 4 treatment arms; those with mild symptoms continued receiving placebo. Participants continued their existing antidepressant treatment during the study. During the open-label phase, dosing frequency was reduced from twice weekly to weekly, and then to every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 8 (each period) in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Results: Sixty-seven participants (38 women, mean [SD] age, 44.7 [10.0] years) were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. Change (least squares mean [SE] difference vs placebo) in MADRS total score (both periods combined) in all 3 esketamine groups was superior to placebo (esketamine 28 mg: -4.2 [2.09], P = .02; 56 mg: -6.3 [2.07], P = .001; 84 mg: -9.0 [2.13], P < .001), with a significant ascending dose-response relationship (P < .001). Improvement in depressive symptoms appeared to be sustained (-7.2 [1.84]) despite reduced dosing frequency in the open-label phase. Three of 56 (5%) esketamine-treated participants during the double-blind phase vs none receiving placebo and 1 of 57 participants (2%) during the open-label phase had adverse events that led to study discontinuation (1 event each of syncope, headache, dissociative syndrome, and ectopic pregnancy). Conclusions and Relevance: In this first clinical study to date of intranasal esketamine for TRD, antidepressant effect was rapid in onset and dose related. Response appeared to persist for more than 2 months with a lower dosing frequency. Results support further investigation in larger trials. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01998958.

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

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

Assessment of Suicidal Ideation and Behavior: Report of the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology Consensus Meeting.

OBJECTIVE: To develop consensus recommendations for assessment of suicidal ideation/suicidal behavior (SI/SB) in clinical trials. PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders from academia, industry, regulatory agencies, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, and patient advocacy organizations participated in a consensus meeting that was sponsored by the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology and held November 17-18, 2015. Prior to the meeting, teams of experts identified key areas of consensus and dissent related to SI/SB. The most critical issues were presented and discussed in the consensus meeting. EVIDENCE: Literature reviews and a pre-meeting survey were conducted. Findings were discussed in pre-meeting working group sessions and at the consensus meeting. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Five pre-meeting working groups reviewed (1) nomenclature and classification schemes for SI/SB, (2) detection and assessment of SI/SB, (3) analysis of SI/SB data, (4) design of clinical trials for new treatments of SI/SB, and (5) public health approaches to SI/SB. A modification of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine review of scientific evidence with the collective views of experts and stakeholders to reach the final consensus statements. After discussion, all attendees voted using an electronic interactive audience response system. Areas of agreement and areas of continuing dissent were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: All 5 working groups agreed that a major barrier to advancement of the field of SI/SB research and the development of new treatments for SI/SB remains the lack of a universally accepted standardized nomenclature and classification system. Achieving alignment on definitions and classification of suicide-related phenomena is critical to improving the detection and assessment of SI/SB, the design of clinical trials for new treatments, and effective public health interventions.

Brief Report: Mediation Analysis with an Ordinal Outcome.

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