Efficacy and Safety of Esmethadone (REL-1017) in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder and Inadequate Response to Standard Antidepressants: A Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To test esmethadone (REL-1017) as adjunctive treatment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and inadequate response to standard antidepressants.Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, outpatients with MDD (DSM-5) were randomized to daily oral esmethadone (75 mg on day 1, followed by 25 mg daily on days 2 through 28) or placebo between December 2020 and December 2022. The primary efficacy measure was change from baseline (CFB) to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included all randomized participants. The per-protocol (PP) population included completers without major protocol deviations impacting assessment. Post hoc analyses included participants with severe depression (baseline MADRS score ≥35).Results: For the ITT analysis (n = 227), mean CFB was 15.1 (SD 11.3) for esmethadone (n = 113) and 12.9 (SD 10.4) for placebo (n = 114), with a mean difference (MD) of 2.3, which was not statistically significant (P = .154; Cohen effect size [ES] = 0.21). Remission rates were 22.1% and 13.2% (P = .076), and response rates were 39.8% and 27.2% (P = .044) with esmethadone and placebo, respectively. For the PP analysis (n = 198), mean CFB was 15.6 (SD 11.2) for esmethadone (n = 101) and 12.5 (SD 9.9) for placebo (n = 97), with an MD of 3.1 (P = .051; ES =0.29). In post hoc analyses of patients with baseline MADRS ≥35 in the ITT population (n = 112), MD was 6.9; P = .0059; ES = 0.57, and for the PP population (n = 98), MD was 7.9; P = .0015; ES = 0.69. Adverse events (AEs) were predominantly mild or moderate and transient, with no significant differences between groups.Conclusions: The primary end point was not met. Esmethadone showed stronger efficacy in PP than in ITT analyses, with the discrepancy not attributable to AEs impacting treatment adherence. Significant efficacy occurred in post hoc analyses of patients with severe depression. Esmethadone was well tolerated, consistent with prior studies.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04688164.

The novel uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist esmethadone (REL-1017) has no meaningful abuse potential in recreational drug users.

Esmethadone (REL-1017) is the opioid-inactive dextro-isomer of methadone and a low-affinity, low-potency uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist. In a Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, esmethadone showed rapid, robust, and sustained antidepressant effects. Two studies were conducted to evaluate the abuse potential of esmethadone. Each study utilized a randomized, double-blind, active-, and placebo-controlled crossover design to assess esmethadone compared with oxycodone (Oxycodone Study) or ketamine (Ketamine Study) in healthy recreational drug users. Esmethadone 25 mg (proposed therapeutic daily dose), 75 mg (loading dose), and 150 mg (Maximum Tolerated Dose) were evaluated in each study. Positive controls were oral oxycodone 40 mg and intravenous ketamine 0.5 mg/kg infused over 40 min. The Ketamine study included oral dextromethorphan 300 mg as an exploratory comparator. The primary endpoint was maximum effect (Emax) for Drug Liking, assessed using a bipolar 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). A total of 47 and 51 participants completed the Oxycodone Study and the Ketamine Study, respectively (Completer Population). In both studies, esmethadone doses ranging from therapeutic (25 mg) to 6 times therapeutic (150 mg) had a meaningful and statistically significantly (p < 0.001) lower Drug Liking VAS Emax compared with the positive control. Results were consistent for all secondary endpoints in both studies. In both studies, all doses of esmethadone were statistically equivalent to placebo on Drug Liking VAS Emax (p < 0.05). In the Ketamine Study, Drug Liking VAS Emax scores for esmethadone at all tested doses were significantly lower vs. dextromethorphan (p < 0.05) (exploratory endpoint). These studies indicate no meaningful abuse potential for esmethadone at all tested doses.

Psychedelic drug abuse potential assessment research for new drug applications and Controlled Substances Act scheduling.

New medicines containing classic hallucinogenic and entactogenic psychedelic substance are under development for various psychiatric and neurological disorders. Many of these, including psilocybin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) are Schedule I controlled substances of the United States Controlled Substances Act (US CSA), and similarly controlled globally. The implications of the CSA for research and medicines development, the path to approval of medicines, and their subsequent removal from Schedule I in the US are discussed. This entire process occurs within the framework of the CSA in the US and its counterparts internationally in accordance with international drug control treaties. Abuse potential related research in the US informs the eight factors of the CSA which provide the basis for rescheduling actions that must occur upon approval of a drug that contains a Schedule I substance. Abuse-related research also informs drug product labeling and the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) will likely be required for approved medicines. Human abuse potential studies typically employed in CNS drug development may be problematic for substances with strong hallucinogenic effects such as psilocybin, and alternative strategies are discussed. Implications for research, medicinal development, and controlled substance scheduling are presented in the context of the US CSA and FDA requirements with implications for global regulation. We also discuss how abuse-related research can contribute to understanding mechanisms of action and therapeutic effects as well as the totality of the effects of the drugs on the brain, behavior, mood, and the constructs of spirituality and consciousness.

Abuse deterrent formulations and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has reduced the diversion of controlled substances at the manufacturing and distribution levels. Recent increased diversion has occurred at the retail level. Levels of diversion and abuse of controlled substances with similar abuse potential and therapeutic indications often parallel availability for medical use, while rates of diversion and abuse may be influenced by factors related to specific products, including their formulations and risk management plans. Abuse deterrent formulations may reduce abuse and attendant adverse health consequences even if the products are diverted. Their development should consider how, to what extent and by whom products containing the targeted substance are abused. It should take into consideration all potential types of abuse including "as is", multiple doses, alternate routes of administration, physical or chemical separation of the active ingredient, compromised extended release mechanisms and abuse in combination with other substances. Industry incentives for developing abuse-resistant formulations include enhanced corporate image and potentially less restrictive scheduling or risk management plans. Scheduling is substance specific, but the CSA includes products/formulations that are differentially scheduled. Issues to be considered for differential scheduling under the CSA include: (1) whether there is legal authority to do so; (2) application of standard scheduling criteria to individual products; (3) product specific data for "eight factor analyses"; (4) development of predictive data and standards accepted by the scientific and regulatory communities; (5) use of predictive data or post marketing surveillance data; (6) international treaty obligations. These issues must be addressed before differential scheduling can be considered.