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

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

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

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

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.).

Efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray in addition to standard of care in patients with major depressive disorder who have active suicidal ideation with intent: A subgroup analysis of the Asian cohort of ASPIRE I (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study).

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine in the Asian subgroup from ASPIRE I. Patients with major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation with intent received intranasal esketamine (n = 26) or placebo (n = 27), plus standard of care for 25 days. The primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to Day 2. The MADRS score improved in favor of esketamine (least squares mean difference: -3.8). No unexpected safety concerns were noted. The Asian subgroup showed a similar efficacy and safety profile as the total ASPIRE I cohort.

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression Who Completed a Second Induction Period: Analysis of the Ongoing SUSTAIN-3 Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a chronic illness requiring long-term treatment. Esketamine nasal spray (ESK) has been studied in several long-term trials of patients with TRD, including SUSTAIN-1 (NCT02493868) and SUSTAIN-3 (NCT02782104). This subgroup analysis of SUSTAIN-3 evaluated patients with TRD who received a second induction (IND) and maintenance treatment with ESK plus oral antidepressant (AD) after a relapse in SUSTAIN-1. METHODS: Patients aged 18-64 years who achieved stable remission or response with ESK and subsequently relapsed after randomization to continue ESK or switch to placebo nasal spray (PBO) in SUSTAIN-1 and entered the IND phase of SUSTAIN-3 were included in this interim analysis. Response (≥50% improvement in total score from baseline for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9]), remission (MADRS score ≤12; PHQ-9 total score <5), changes in depression rating scores (measured as mean change from baseline), and safety were evaluated (incidence of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events [AE]). RESULTS: Of the 96 eligible patients who entered IND in SUSTAIN-3, 32 (33.3%) were taking ESK+AD at the time of relapse in SUSTAIN-1 and 64 (66.7%) were taking AD+PBO. Substantial improvements in depressive symptoms were observed over the second IND phase in both groups and were maintained over the optimization/maintenance (OP/M) phase. MADRS response rates following a second IND were 71.9% and 73.4% for previously relapsed (PR) ESK+AD and PR-AD+PBO, respectively; remission rates were 62.5% and 60.9%, respectively. During the IND and OP/M phases, 58.3% and 83.3% of patients experienced a treatment-emergent AE, respectively. No patients discontinued due to an AE during the second IND. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TRD benefitted from receiving a second IND and maintenance treatment with ESK and no new safety signals were identified.

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).

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

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

Long-term safety and maintenance of response with esketamine nasal spray in participants with treatment-resistant depression: interim results of the SUSTAIN-3 study.

Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have higher rates of relapse and pronounced decreases in daily functioning and health-related quality of life compared to patients with major depressive disorder who are not treatment-resistant, underscoring the need for treatment choices with sustained efficacy and long-term tolerability. Adults with TRD who participated in ≥1 of 6 phase 3 "parent" studies could continue esketamine treatment, combined with an oral antidepressant, by enrolling in phase 3, open-label, long-term extension study, SUSTAIN-3. Based on their status at parent-study end, eligible participants entered a 4-week induction phase followed by an optimization/maintenance phase, or directly entered the optimization/maintenance phase of SUSTAIN-3. Intranasal esketamine dosing was flexible, twice-weekly during induction and individualized to depression severity during optimization/maintenance. At the interim data cutoff (01 December 2020), 1148 participants were enrolled, 458 at induction and 690 at optimization/maintenance. Mean (median) cumulative duration of maintenance esketamine treatment was 31.5 (37.7) months (totaling 2769 cumulative patient-years). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥20%) were headache, dizziness, nausea, dissociation, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. Mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score decreased during induction, and this reduction persisted during optimization/maintenance (mean [SD] change from the baseline to the endpoint of each phase: induction -12.8 [9.73]; optimization/maintenance +1.1 [9.93]), with 35.6% and 46.1% of participants in remission (MADRS total score ≤12) at induction and optimization/maintenance endpoints, respectively. Improvement in depression ratings generally persisted among participants who remained in maintenance treatment, and no new safety signal was identified during long-term treatment (up to 4.5 years) using intermittent-dosed esketamine in conjunction with daily antidepressant.

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

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

Consistency checks to improve measurement with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAM-A).

BACKGROUND: Mitigating rating inconsistency can improve measurement fidelity and detection of treatment response. METHODS: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology convened an expert Working Group that developed consistency checks for ratings of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and Clinical Global Impression of Severity of anxiety (CGIS) that are widely used in studies of mood and anxiety disorders. Flags were applied to 40,349 HAM-A administrations from 15 clinical trials and to Monte Carlo-simulated data as a proxy for applying flags under conditions of inconsistency. RESULTS: Thirty-three flags were derived these included logical consistency checks and statistical outlier-response pattern checks. Twenty-percent of the HAM-A administrations had at least one logical scoring inconsistency flag, 4 % had two or more. Twenty-six percent of the administrations had at least one statistical outlier flag and 11 % had two or more. Overall, 35 % of administrations had at least one flag of any type, 19 % had one and 16 % had 2 or more. Most of administrations in the Monte Carlo- simulated data raised multiple flags. LIMITATIONS: Flagged ratings may represent less-common presentations of administrations done correctly. Conclusions-Application of flags to clinical ratings may aid in detecting imprecise measurement. Flags can be used for monitoring of raters during an ongoing trial and as part of post-trial evaluation. Appling flags may improve reliability and validity of trial data.

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

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

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

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

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.

Evaluation of major treatment failure in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder: A post hoc analysis from the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study.

OBJECTIVE: A post hoc analysis of the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study was conducted to evaluate time to first major treatment failure (ie, arrest/incarceration or psychiatric hospitalization) in participants with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder treated with paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral antipsychotics (OAPs). METHODS: DREaM was an open-label, delayed-start, randomized, multipart trial consisting of: Part I, 2-month oral run-in; Part II, 9-month disease progression phase (PP or OAP); and Part III, 9 months of additional treatment (PP/PP; OAP re-randomized: OAP/OAP or OAP/PP). PP/PP and OAP/OAP comprised the 18-month extended disease progression (EDP) analysis. RESULTS: In Part II (PP, n = 78; OAP, n = 157), similar proportions of participants experienced a major treatment failure across groups (PP: 12.8 %; OAP: 13.4 %); no difference in time to first major treatment failure was identified (P = 0.918). Significant differences favoring PP emerged after 9 months; in Part III, no participants in the PP/PP group, 3.5 % of participants in the OAP/PP group, and 15.9 % in the OAP/OAP group experienced a major treatment failure (P = 0.002). In the EDP analysis, 10.2 % (PP/PP) and 25.4 % (OAP/OAP) of participants experienced a major treatment failure (P = 0.045; number needed to treat = 6). Safety results were similar between groups and consistent with the known safety profile of PP in adults with schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of PP during the early stages of schizophrenia spectrum disorders significantly delayed time to hospitalization and arrest/incarceration, outcomes with important personal and economic consequences, compared with OAP during this 18-month study. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02431702.

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

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

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 .

Using Artificial Intelligence-based Methods to Address the Placebo Response in Clinical Trials.

The placebo response is a highly complex psychosocial-biological phenomenon that has challenged drug development for decades, particularly in neurological and psychiatric disease. While decades of research have aimed to understand clinical trial factors that contribute to the placebo response, a comprehensive solution to manage the placebo response in drug development has yet to emerge. Advanced data analytic techniques, such as artificial intelligence (AI), might be needed to take the next leap forward in mitigating the negative consequences of high placebo-response rates. The objective of this review was to explore the use of techniques such as AI and the sub-discipline of machine learning (ML) to address placebo response in practical ways that can positively impact drug development. This examination focused on the critical factors that should be considered in applying AI and ML to the placebo response issue, examples of how these techniques can be used, and the regulatory considerations for integrating these approaches into clinical trials.

The Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study: Effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics in patients with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder.

We report primary results of the Disease Recovery Evaluation and Modification (DREaM) study, a randomized, open-label, delayed-start trial designed to compare the effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (PP) versus oral antipsychotics (OAP) in delaying time to first treatment failure (TtFTF) in participants with recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. DREaM included: Part I, 2-month oral run-in; Part II, 9-month disease progression phase (PP or OAP); Part III, 9 months of additional treatment (PP/PP; OAP rerandomized: OAP/OAP or OAP/PP). PP/PP and OAP/OAP comprised the 18-month extended disease progression (EDP) analysis. A total of 235 participants were randomized to PP (n = 78) or OAP (n = 157) in Part II. No statistically significant differences in TF between treatment groups were identified during Part II (PP 29.5%, OAP 24.8%; P = 0.377), Part III (PP/PP 14.3%, OAP/PP 15.8%, OAP/OAP 28.6%; P = 0.067) or the EDP analysis (PP/PP 28.6%, OAP/OAP 44.4%; NNT = 6; P = 0.080). Using a modified definition of TF excluding treatment supplementation with another antipsychotic, a common approach to managing dose adjustments, significant differences were observed between treatment groups in Part III (PP/PP 4.1%, OAP/PP 14.0%, OAP/OAP 27.0%; P = 0.002) and EDP (PP/PP 14.3%, OAP/OAP 42.9%; P = 0.001). Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of PP. Although significant treatment differences were not observed during the first 9 months of DREaM, numerical differences favoring PP emerged in the last 9 months and significant differences were observed when TF criteria were limited to their most impactful components. These results highlight the potential benefit of initiating PP early in the course of schizophrenia and provide valuable insights for future clinical trials in recent-onset schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02431702.