Indirect adjusted comparison of 6-month clinical outcomes between esketamine nasal spray and other real-world polypharmacy treatment strategies for treatment resistant depression: results from the ICEBERG study.

Background: The efficacy of esketamine nasal spray (NS) as a rapid-acting agent for treatment resistant depression (TRD) was demonstrated in comparisons with placebo, when both were given in addition to a newly initiated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). How esketamine NS compares with commonly used real-world (RW) polypharmacy treatment strategies is not known. Method: ICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison that analysed data from SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov), a long-term, open-label study of esketamine NS plus SSRI/SNRI, and the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov), an observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were compared between patients receiving esketamine NS (SUSTAIN-2) and those from the EOTC treated with polypharmacy treatment strategies, either combination or augmentation. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, using rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Threshold analyses were conducted to assess potential impact of unmeasured confounders on the robustness of analyses where esketamine NS was found to be significantly superior. Sensitivity analyses were used to understand the impact of analysis method selection and data handling. Results: Esketamine NS treatment resulted in a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) versus RW polypharmacy (26.8% [95% CI 21.0-32.5] and 19.4%, [95% CI 14.2-24.6], respectively). Relative risk calculations showed esketamine NS was 1.859 (95% CI 1.474-2.345; p < 0.0001) times as likely to result in response and 1.735 (1.297-2.322; p = 0.0002) times as likely to result in remission versus RW polypharmacy at 6 months. Threshold and extensive sensitivity analyses supported that analyses of esketamine NS superiority were robust. Conclusion: ICEBERG supports esketamine NS being superior to current RW individualized polypharmacy strategies, including augmentation, with benefits extending beyond acute use, to improved chance of 6-month response and remission. While unobserved confounding factors may certainly impact results of an indirect comparison, threshold analysis supported a low likelihood of this affecting the conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.

ICEBERG study: an indirect adjusted comparison estimating the long-term benefit of esketamine nasal spray when compared with routine treatment of treatment resistant depression in general psychiatry.

Background: Treatment resistant depression (TRD) affects 10-30% of patients with major depressive disorder. In 4-week trials, esketamine nasal spray (NS) was efficacious vs. placebo when both were initiated in addition to a new selective serotonin or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. However, comparison with an extended range of real-world treatments (RWT) is lacking. Methods: ICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison using propensity score-based inverse probability weighting, performed on 6-month response and remission data from patients receiving esketamine NS plus oral antidepressant from the SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov) study, compared with patients receiving other RWT from the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov) study. SUSTAIN-2 was a long-term open-label study of esketamine NS, while the EOTC was conducted at a time when esketamine NS was not available as RWT. Threshold and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how robust the primary analyses were. Results: Patients receiving esketamine NS had a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) vs. patients receiving RWT (26.4% [95% CI 21.5-31.4] and 18.2% [95% CI 13.9-22.5], respectively), according to rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Resulting adjusted odds ratios (OR) and relative risk (RR) favoured esketamine NS over RWT for 6-month response (OR 2.756 [95% CI 2.034-3.733], p < 0.0001; RR 1.882 [95% CI 1.534-2.310], p < 0.0001) and remission (OR 2.276 [95% CI 1.621-3.196], p < 0.0001; RR 1.847 [95% CI 1.418-2.406], p < 0.0001). Threshold analyses suggested that differences between the two studies were robust, and results were consistent across extensive sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: ICEBERG supports that, at 6 months, esketamine NS has a substantial and significant benefit over RWT for patients with TRD. While results may be affected by unobserved confounding factors, threshold analyses suggested these were unlikely to impact the study conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.

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.).

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.

The burden of suicidal ideation across Europe: a cross-sectional survey in five countries.

BACKGROUND: Suicidal ideation (SI) is an associated risk of depression, affecting 30-40% of the depressed population. However, there is a paucity of studies investigating the impact of SI in Europe. This retrospective observational study examined the burden of SI among adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) in the 2017 National Health and Wellness Survey in five European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. METHODS: Bivariate analyses evaluated group differences between respondents with MDD with and without SI according to demographic characteristics, self-reported health-related quality of life, work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI), and healthcare resource utilization (HRU). Generalized linear models examined group differences country-wise, after controlling for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Among 52,060 respondents, 3,308 individuals were diagnosed with MDD, comprising SI (n=905) and non-SI (nSI) (n=2403) patients. Adjusted differences (ADs), compared to the general population, were observed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Survey (SF-12v2) mental component summary scores (AD: SI=-20.02, nSI=-10.77), physical component summary scores (AD: SI=-4.49, nSI=-2.50), and EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (AD: SI=-0.34, nSI=-0.15) (for all, p<0.001). Significantly greater WPAI and higher HRU were associated with SI compared to nSI. CONCLUSION: The results illustrate the unique impact of SI within the MDD population and the need to reduce the burden.

The humanistic and economic burden of treatment-resistant depression in Europe: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A patient is considered to suffer from treatment resistant depression (TRD) when consecutive treatment with two products of different pharmacological classes, used for a sufficient length of time at an adequate dose, fail to induce a clinically meaningful effect (inadequate response). The primary aim of the current study was to examine the humanistic and economic burden of TRD in five European countries, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, by comparing with non-treatment resistant depression (nTRD) and general population respondents. METHODS: The sample for this retrospective observational study was taken from the 2017 National Health and Wellness Survey conducted in five European countries. Demographic and patient characteristics were examined for TRD patients compared to respondents with nTRD and to the general population using chi-square tests or one-way analysis of variance for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. Generalized linear models were performed to examine group differences after adjusting these estimates for confounders. RESULTS: A total 52,060 survey respondents were examined, of which 2686 and 622 were considered to have non-treatment resistant and treatment-resistant depression, respectively. Relative to the general population, nTRD and TRD respondents reported significant decrements in health-related quality of life, including lower adjusted mental (- 12.1 vs. -18.1) and physical (- 2.5 vs. -5.4) component scores of the SF-12v2 and increased adjusted relative risk for work (2.2 vs. 2.7) and activity (1.9 vs. 2.5) impairment (all p < 0.001). Additionally, healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher for TRD patients more so than nTRD, compared to the general population, especially for healthcare professional visits (odds ratio nTRD = 5.4; TRD = 15.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, TRD patients had significantly lower quality of life, greater work productivity and activity impairment, and increased healthcare resource utilization as compared with nTRD and general population. The study findings suggest an unmet need exists among TRD patients in Europe.

Psychometric validation of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression (PDQ-D) instrument in US and UK respondents with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Although depression and cognitive dysfunction are connected, limited tools exist to capture the patient's perspective on cognitive dysfunction and its impact on major depressive disorder (MDD). We report results of a psychometric validation of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire-Depression (PDQ-D), a self-report measure of cognitive dysfunction for use in MDD. METHODS: A non-interventional, prospective, panel-recruited, online survey was conducted using the PDQ-D in adults with and without MDD in the US and UK. Respondents were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks (MDD only) (baseline: US n=418, UK n=437, 49% MDD; follow-up: US n=169, UK n=153, all MDD). The criterion measures included: Medical Outcomes Study Cognitive Functioning Scale-Revised-acute form (MOS COG-R), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Patient Global Impression of Severity scale (PGI-Severity), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific-Health Problem (WPAI:SHP), and modified Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale (LEAPS). US and UK data were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Internal consistency was high for PDQ-D total scale and four subscales (Cronbach's alpha 0.81-0.96). Convergent validity was good, with strong concordance with MOS COG-R and moderate/small correlations with PHQ-9, SDS, WPAI:SHP, LEAPS, and PGI-Severity. Significant differences (all P<0.001) existed for all PDQ-D subscale and total scores between MDD/non-MDD samples. The PDQ-D was responsive to changes in depression symptom severity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported scoring of a global overall scale for perceived cognitive dysfunction. CONCLUSION: The PDQ-D provides a reliable and valid measure of subjective cognitive dysfunction in patients with MDD.

Long-term follow-up on health-related quality of life in major depressive disorder: a 2-year European cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with significant impairments in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and everyday functioning. This cohort study investigated the long-term development of HRQoL in patients with MDD and its association with patient characteristics, including depressive symptom severity and cognitive symptoms. METHODS: The Prospective Epidemiological Research on Functioning Outcomes Related to Major depressive disorder (PERFORM) study was a longitudinal cohort study conducted in 1,159 outpatients aged 18-65 years with MDD in France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. The patients were either initiating antidepressant monotherapy or undergoing their first switch of antidepressant. HRQoL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12-item Health Survey (SF-12) up to month 12 and the EuroQol Five Dimensions questionnaire up to month 24 (UK only). Depressive symptom severity was assessed up to month 24 by the patient-reported Patient Health Questionnaire and cognitive symptoms by the Perceived Deficit Questionnaire. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics associated with HRQoL. RESULTS: Mental HRQoL was severely impaired at baseline versus normative data (mean [SD] SF-12 mental component summary [MCS], 26.5 [9.2]); mean (SD) physical component summary (PCS) total score was 45.2 (12.1). SF-12 MCS improved over 12 months of follow-up (38.7 [11.6] at month 12), while SF-12 PCS remained stable (45.3 [11.1]). At each assessment time point, there was a clear pattern of lower SF-12 MCS and PCS total score in patients experiencing greater cognitive problems. The mean EuroQol Five Dimensions questionnaire utility index score generally decreased (i.e., worsened) with increasing severity of cognitive and depressive symptoms at all time points up to 24 months. Multivariate analyses identified both depression severity and cognitive symptoms as strongly and significantly associated with poor HRQoL. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance of recognizing and managing residual symptoms in patients with MDD, including the cognitive symptoms, to restore long-term psychosocial functioning.

Characteristics of patients with depression initiating or switching antidepressant treatment: baseline analyses of the PERFORM cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who require a switch in their antidepressant therapy may have different clinical profiles and treatment needs compared with patients initiating or maintaining a first-line antidepressant therapy. METHODS: The Prospective Epidemiological Research on Functioning Outcomes Related to Major depressive disorder (MDD) (PERFORM) study was a 2-year observational cohort study in outpatients with MDD in five European countries. Enrolled patients were either initiating or undergoing the first switch to an antidepressant monotherapy. Baseline data on patients' clinical status, functioning, productivity, quality of life and medical-resource use were compared in a cross-sectional baseline analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients were enrolled, of whom 1159 (82.7%) provided analysable baseline data. The majority (78.7%) of the analysable population were initiating antidepressant treatment and most (83.6%) were enrolled and followed up by general practitioners. Compared with patients initiating antidepressants, those switching antidepressants (21.3%) tended to have more severe depressive symptoms, greater anxiety, worse health-related quality of life, greater functional impairment, greater medical-resource use and had a different medical history. Limitations included an over-representation of switches due to lack of efficacy among patients who were switching treatment, as patients were selected based on presence of depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MDD who are switching treatment for the first time have a different profile and different depression-associated health needs compared with those initiating treatment. Therapeutic management should therefore be adapted for patients who switch. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01427439 ; Retrospectively registered 26 August 2011.

Functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder: the 2-year PERFORM study.

BACKGROUND: The Prospective Epidemiological Research on Functioning Outcomes Related to Major depressive disorder (PERFORM) study describes the course of depressive symptoms, perceived cognitive symptoms, and functional impairment over 2 years in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and investigates the patient-related factors associated with functional impairment. METHODS: This was a 2-year observational study in 1,159 outpatients with MDD aged 18-65 years who were either initiating antidepressant monotherapy or undergoing their first switch of antidepressant. Functional impairment was assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Patients assessed depression severity using the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire and severity of perceived cognitive symptoms using the five-item Perceived Deficit Questionnaire. To investigate which patient-related factors were associated with functional impairment, univariate analyses of variance were performed to identify relevant factors that were then included in multivariate analyses of covariance at baseline, month 2, months 6 and 12 combined, and months 18 and 24 combined. RESULTS: The greatest improvement in depressive symptoms, perceived cognitive symptoms, and functional impairment was seen immediately (within 2 months) following initiation or switch of antidepressant therapy, followed by more gradual improvement and long-term stabilization. Improvement in perceived cognitive symptoms was less marked than improvement in depressive symptoms during the acute treatment phase. Functional impairment in patients with MDD was not only associated with severity of depressive symptoms but also independently associated with severity of perceived cognitive symptoms when adjusted for depression severity throughout the 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the burden of functional impairment in MDD and the importance of recognizing and managing cognitive symptoms in daily practice.

Factors associated with failure to achieve remission and with relapse after remission in patients with major depressive disorder in the PERFORM study.

BACKGROUND: The Prospective Epidemiological Research on Functioning Outcomes Related to Major Depressive Disorder (PERFORM) study has been initiated to better understand the course of a depressive episode and its impact on patient functioning. This analysis aimed to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with failure to achieve remission at month 2 after initiating or switching antidepressant monotherapy and with subsequent relapse at month 6 for patients in remission at month 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 2-year observational cohort study in 1,159 outpatients aged 18-65 years with major depressive disorder initiating or undergoing the first switch of antidepressant monotherapy. Factors with P<0.20 in univariate logistic regression analyses were combined in a multiple logistic regression model to which backward variable selection was applied (ie, sequential removal of the least significant variable from the model and recomputation of the model until all remaining variables have P<0.05). RESULTS: Baseline factors significantly associated with lower odds of remission at month 2 were body-mass index ≥30 kg/m2 (OR 0.51), depressive episode >8 weeks (OR 0.51), being in psychotherapy (OR 0.51), sexual dysfunction (OR 0.62), and severity of depression (OR 0.87). Factors significantly associated with relapse at month 6 were male sex (OR 2.47), being married or living as a couple (OR 2.73), residual patient-reported cognitive symptoms at 2 months (OR 1.12 per additional unit of Perceived Deficit Questionnaire-5 score) and residual depressive symptoms at 2 months (OR 1.27 per additional unit of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score). CONCLUSION: Different factors appear to be associated with failure to achieve remission in patients with major depressive disorder and with subsequent relapse in patients who do achieve remission. Patient-reported cognitive dysfunction is an easily measurable and treatable characteristic that may be associated with an increased likelihood of relapse at 6 months in patients who have achieved remission.

The effect of vortioxetine on overall patient functioning in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this meta-analysis of data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies were to assess the effect of vortioxetine on overall functioning (primary) and functional remission (secondary) using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Data from nine short-term (6/8 weeks) pivotal studies that included patient functioning assessments were included in this random-effects meta-analysis, which used aggregated study-level data for all therapeutic vortioxetine doses and a mixed-effect model for repeated measures using the full analysis set. RESULTS: A total of 4,216 patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment (1,522 placebo, 2,694 vortioxetine 5-20 mg/day). At study end, the meta-analysis showed improvement for vortioxetine versus placebo (n = 911) in SDS total score (vortioxetine 5 mg, n = 564, change from baseline versus placebo [Δ] -0.24, p = NS; 10 mg, n = 445, Δ -1.68, p ≤ .001; 15 mg, n = 204, Δ -0.91, p = NS; 20 mg, n = 340, Δ -1.94, p ≤ .01). Functional remission (SDS total score ≤6) was observed with vortioxetine 10 mg (n = 170/573; odds ratio [OR] relative to placebo 1.7, p < .001) and 20 mg (n = 144/447; OR 1.6, p < .05), but not 5 mg (n = 207/757; OR 1.1, p = NS) or 15 mg (n = 92/295; OR 1.3, p = NS). CONCLUSION: Vortioxetine 5-20 mg for 6/8 weeks improved overall patient functioning in patients with MDD. Relative to placebo, vortioxetine 10 and 20 mg demonstrated significant improvement in SDS total score and functional remission.

The effect of vortioxetine on health-related quality of life in patients with major depressive disorder.

PURPOSE: Major depressive disorder (MDD) has detrimental effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We describe the effect of vortioxetine on HRQoL in MDD patients by using patient-reported outcome instruments. METHODS: HRQoL was evaluated in 5 short-term (6-8 weeks), randomized studies of vortioxetine (5-20 mg/d; n = 2155) versus placebo (n = 1316) in adults with MDD by using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form, the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and the 12-item Health Status Questionnaire in 1 study in elderly patients. Only patients receiving the approved doses of vortioxetine 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg/d were included in the analysis. A random effects meta-analysis was performed on the 4 adult MDD studies that used the SF-36. A within-studies mixed model for repeated measures analysis based on the full analysis set (FAS) was used unless otherwise specified. Standardized effect size (SES) was calculated to reflect clinical relevance, based on a Cohen's d of 0.2. FINDINGS: Vortioxetine produced significantly better results compared with placebo in the SF-36 mental component summary score (5 mg: 2.6, P = 0.001, SES of 0.22, n = 604; 10 mg: 4.8, P < 0.001, SES of 0.42, n = 328) and 4 domain scores (vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health). Vortioxetine was also significantly better in the EuroQoL-5 Dimension Questionnaire Health State score (10 mg: 7.5, P < 0.05, SES of 0.33, n = 86) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form total score (15 mg: 3.3, P < 0.01, SES of 0.38, n = 127; 20 mg: 4.5, P < 0.0001, SES of 0.52, n = 134) (FAS, last-observation-carried-forward). In the study of elderly patients, vortioxetine 5 mg (n = 136) improved 12-item Health Status Questionnaire scores significantly more than placebo (n = 148) for the domains of health perception (10.4, P < 0.0001, SES of 0.54), mental health (7.9, P < 0.001, SES of 0.44), and energy (6.4, P < 0.05, SES of 0.28) (FAS, mixed model for repeated measures). IMPLICATIONS: Vortioxetine yielded significant, meaningful HRQoL improvements in 6 MDD studies of 6 to 8 weeks' duration.

Can we well assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of a new drug versus others at the time of marketing authorization using mixed treatment comparisons? A detailed illustration with escitalopram.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation of relative efficacy and tolerability of an antidepressant versus others based on both pre-marketing (registration studies) and post-marketing studies versus pre-marketing studies only in patients with major depressive disorder. METHODS: The relative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants was assessed by mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) using data acquired over two time periods: before registration of the reference drug escitalopram (1989-2002) and up to 5 years later (1989-2007). Ranking probability outputs were presented for efficacy, using change from baseline to 8 weeks on Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score, and tolerability, using withdrawals due to adverse events. RESULTS: The relative efficacy and tolerability of some selected antidepressants, including escitalopram, varied considerably over the two time periods. The improved relative efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram over time, compared with citalopram, was demonstrated by greater separation of ranking probability curves for efficacy and tolerability. In 2002, escitalopram ranked low with 13.9% and 5.1% probability of being in the top four antidepressants' relative efficacy and tolerability, respectively. In 2007, ranking probabilities for relative efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram increased to 52.5% and 82.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Time of marketing authorization may not be the most appropriate time to evaluate the relative efficacy and tolerability of a new antidepressant based on MTC approach due to the asymmetry of information between new and older compounds. However, the first evaluation of relative effect of a new drug for health technology assessment recommendations is commonly done at this time. Re-evaluation of a drug several years after its launch is likely to provide a more accurate indication of its relative efficacy and tolerability.

Relative efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine versus selected antidepressants by indirect comparisons of similar clinical studies.

INTRODUCTION: Vortioxetine is an antidepressant with multimodal activity which has shown efficacy in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients in six of ten short-term, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (completed end 2012). METHODS: We performed meta-regression analyses to indirectly compare vortioxetine to seven marketed antidepressants with different mechanisms of action. To ensure study comparability, only experimental drug and placebo arms from placebo-controlled registration studies were included in primary analyses. The main outcomes were efficacy (standardized mean difference in change from baseline to 2 months on primary endpoint [MADRS/HAM-D]), and tolerability (withdrawal rate due to adverse events). RESULTS: For efficacy, estimates of treatment effect (negative estimates favor vortioxetine) for vortioxetine versus comparators were: agomelatine, -0.16 (p = 0.11); desvenlafaxine, 0.03 (p = 0.80); duloxetine, 0.09 (p = 0.42); escitalopram, -0.05 (p = 0.70); sertraline, -0.04 (p = 0.83); venlafaxine IR/XR, 0.12 (p = 0.33); and vilazodone, -0.25 (p = 0.11). For tolerability, all but one combination was numerically in favor of vortioxetine (odds ratio < 1), although not all differences were statistically significant: agomelatine, 1.77 (p = 0.03); desvenlafaxine, 0.58 (p = 0.04); duloxetine, 0.75 (p = 0.26); escitalopram, 0.67 (p = 0.28); sertraline, 0.30 (p = 0.01); venlafaxine, 0.47 (p = 0.01); and vilazodone, 0.64 (p = 0.18). Sensitivity analyses did not significantly alter antidepressant effect estimates or relative ranking. CONCLUSION: These meta-regression data show that vortioxetine offers a comparable or favorable combination of efficacy (measured by MADRS/HAM-D) and tolerability (measured by withdrawal rate due to adverse events) versus other antidepressants in registration studies in MDD. Alternative methods like mixed-treatment comparison and inclusion of all randomized studies and active reference arms may provide complementary information to this analysis (more evidence but also more heterogeneity). Key messages: Indirect comparisons based on registration studies allow a useful comparison between a recently approved antidepressant and an approved drug. Vortioxetine offers a comparable or favorable combination of efficacy (measured by MADRS/HAM-D assessments) and tolerability (measured by withdrawal rate due to adverse events) versus other antidepressants in registration studies in MDD.

The impact of memantine in combination with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on admission of patients with Alzheimer's disease to nursing homes: cost-effectiveness analysis in France.

The costs associated with the care of Alzheimer's disease patients are very high, particularly those associated with nursing home placement. The combination of a cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) and memantine has been shown to significantly delay admission to nursing homes as compared to treatment with a ChEI alone. The objective of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate the economic impact of the concomitant use of memantine and ChEI compared to ChEI alone. Markov modelling was used in order to simulate transitions over time among three discrete health states (non-institutionalised, institutionalised and deceased). Transition probabilities were obtained from observational studies and French national statistics, utilities from a previous US survey and costs from French national statistics. The analysis was conducted from societal and healthcare system perspectives. Mean time to nursing home admission was 4.57 years for ChEIs alone and 5.54 years for combination therapy, corresponding to 0.98 additional years, corresponding to a gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.25. From a healthcare system perspective, overall costs were €98,609 for ChEIs alone and €90,268 for combination therapy, representing cost savings of €8,341. From a societal perspective, overall costs were €122,039 and €118,721, respectively, representing cost savings of €3,318. Deterministic and probabilistic (Monte Carlo simulations) sensitivity analyses indicated that combination therapy would be the dominant strategy in most scenarios. In conclusion, combination therapy with memantine and a ChEI is a cost-saving alternative compared to ChEI alone as it is associated with lower cost and increased QALYs from both a societal and a healthcare perspective.

Synthesis and comparison of the meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of memantine in moderate to severe stages of Alzheimer's disease.

The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, memantine, is licensed for the treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Memantine is administered both as a monotherapy and as an add-on therapy in patients already receiving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Several meta-analyses have been published that examine the efficacy of memantine in the treatment of AD, based on clinical trial data. However, different disease severities and concomitant medication use in the trial populations means that synthesis of this data is challenging with numerous methodological decisions required. The main objectives of this study were to review the methodologies of different meta-analyses, assess the impact of specific methodological approaches on efficacy results, and to help interpret previous meta-analyses results concerning the efficacy of memantine in moderate to severe stages of AD. The methodologies of five meta-analyses were reviewed in terms of the included trials, combination of data, choice of outcome, and analysis methods. Results were extracted and compared in line with the methodological approach taken. The most robust results were observed on cognition, activities of daily living, and overall assessment, where memantine showed a consistent benefit over placebo. The benefit of memantine on behavioral symptoms was also demonstrated, but results were more heterogeneous. Variability could not be explained by baseline severity and concomitant treatment alone. It is stressed that interpretation of meta-analysis results must be considered within the context of the methodological approach. Overall, results from individual clinical trials and from meta-analyses demonstrate that memantine represents a valuable treatment option in AD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of memantine relative to standard care in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease in the Netherlands. METHODS: A country-adapted five-year Markov model simulated disease progression through a series of states, defined by dependency and disease severity. Transition probabilities were derived from trials, with utility and epidemiological data obtained from a longitudinal Dutch cohort. Cost-effectiveness was described in terms of quality-adjusted life years and time spent in a nondependent state or in a moderate severity state. RESULTS: Memantine monotherapy versus standard care led to 0.058 quality-adjusted life years gained (1.207 versus 1.265), longer time in a nondependent state (from 1.602 to 1.751 years) and in a moderate state (from 2.051 to 2.141 years), and no additional costs (€113,927 versus €110,097). Robustness of results was confirmed through sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Memantine is dominant compared with standard care in the Netherlands. Results are consistent with similar economic evaluations in other countries.

Cost-effectiveness of memantine compared with standard care in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the addition of memantine to standard care (that is, without acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) with standard care alone in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD) in Canada. METHODS: A 2-year Markov model estimated clinical effects in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and time in complete dependence as well as societal costs in four 6-month cycles. Health states were defined by AD severity assessed with the Mini-Mental State Examination (moderate = 10 to 19; severe < 10), by level of dependence in activities of daily living, and by death. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining data of patients with moderate-to-severe AD from all relevant clinical trials. QALYs were estimated from a UK epidemiologic study. The initial distribution and use of medical and support services for each health state was obtained from the Canadian Study on Health and Aging with current estimates of frequency of use and unit prices applied. RESULTS: Compared with standard care, the memantine strategy saved more than 1 month of complete dependence and produced 0.03 additional QALYs, with no additional cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses give an 83.3% chance that memantine treatment is cost-neutral, an 89.5% chance of its being cost-effective if the decision maker is willing to pay $20 000 for a QALY, and a 96.2% chance with a willingness to pay $100 000 per QALY. Robustness of results was confirmed through 1-way and scenario-based sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation found that memantine monotherapy produced relevant health benefit, compared with standard care alone, with no additional costs. Results are consistent with other economic evaluations of memantine conducted in Europe and the United States.

New assessment of dependency in demented patients: impact on the quality of life in informal caregivers.

UNLABELLED: A qualitative tool was recently developed for evaluation of dependency in a demented population. This tool assesses the impact of cognitive impairment on functional status, taking into account disability in both the basic and the instrumental activities of daily living. The purpose of the present paper was to study the impact of dependency on informal caregivers who assist demented patients at home, with this new useful tool. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was undertaken of the subgroup of 145 demented patients of the National Dementia Economic Study, aged > or = 65 years, living in the community, with an available caregiver. A neuropsychological assessment of patients (Mini-Mental State Examination) and a comprehensive evaluation of caregivers (quality of life, Short Form Health Survey-36, depression, Sense of Competence) were recorded. A total of 32.4% were dependent, disabled in both basic and instrumental functions, 42.1% were non-dependent but with instrumental functional disabilities and 25.5% were non-dependent. Impact of dependency on the caregiver's experience was significant for different aspects (satisfaction with caregiving, subjective burden, quality of life, depression). Medical and non-medical costs increased with the severity of functional disability. Findings indicate that this tool is also useful to assess the impact of progression of functional disability in patients with dementia, on the caregiver issues. The consequences appeared both on personal feelings and on quality of life and financial involvement in management of the patient. Cognitive impairment appears to have more moderate repercussions in these areas.