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.

Managing Esketamine Treatment Frequency Toward Successful Outcomes: Analysis of Phase 3 Data.

BACKGROUND: Esketamine nasal spray was recently approved for treatment-resistant depression. The current analysis evaluated the impact of symptom-based treatment frequency changes during esketamine treatment on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of an open-label, long-term (up to 1 year) study of esketamine in patients with treatment-resistant depression (SUSTAIN 2). During a 4-week induction phase, 778 patients self-administered esketamine twice weekly plus a new oral antidepressant daily. In responders (≥50% reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score from baseline), esketamine treatment frequency was thereafter decreased during an optimization/maintenance phase to weekly for 4 weeks and then adjusted to the lowest frequency (weekly or every other week) that maintained remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale ≤ 12) based on a study-defined algorithm. The relationship between treatment frequency and symptom response, based on clinically meaningful change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, was subsequently evaluated 4 weeks after treatment frequency adjustments in the optimization/maintenance phase. RESULTS: Among 580 responders treated with weekly esketamine for the first 4 weeks in the optimization/maintenance phase (per protocol), 26% continued to improve, 50% maintained clinical benefit, and 24% worsened. Thereafter, when treatment frequency could be reduced from weekly to every other week, 19% further improved, 49% maintained benefit, and 32% worsened. For patients no longer in remission after treatment frequency reduction, an increase (every other week to weekly) resulted in 47% improved, 43% remained unchanged, and 10% worsened. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support individualization of esketamine nasal spray treatment frequency to optimize treatment response in real-world clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02497287.

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 Paliperidone Palmitate 3-Month Formulation for Patients with Schizophrenia: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase-3 study was designed to test the noninferiority of paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation (PP3M) to the currently marketed 1-month formulation (PP1M) in patients (age 18-70 years) with schizophrenia, previously stabilized on PP1M. METHODS: After screening (≤3 weeks) and a 17-week, flexible-dosed, open-label phase (PP1M: day 1 [150mg eq. deltoid], day 8 [100mg eq. deltoid.], weeks 5, 9, and 13 [50, 75, 100, or 150mg eq., deltoid/gluteal]), clinically stable patients were randomized (1:1) to PP3M (fixed-dose, 175, 263, 350, or 525mg eq. deltoid/gluteal) or PP1M (fixed-dose, 50, 75, 100, or 150mg eq. deltoid/gluteal) for a 48-week double-blind phase. RESULTS: Overall, 1016/1429 open-label patients entered the double-blind phase (PP3M: n=504; PP1M: n=512) and 842 completed it (including patients with relapse). PP3M was noninferior to PP1M: relapse rates were similar in both groups (PP3M: n=37, 8%; PP1M: n=45, 9%; difference in relapse-free rate: 1.2% [95% CI:-2.7%; 5.1%]) based on Kaplan-Meier estimates (primary efficacy). Secondary endpoint results (changes from double-blind baseline in positive and negative symptom score total and subscale scores, Clinical Global Impression-Severity, and Personal and Social Performance scores) were consistent with primary endpoint results. No clinically relevant differences were observed in pharmacokinetic exposures between PP3M and PP1M. Both groups had similar tolerability profiles; increased weight was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (double-blind phase; 21% each). No new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Taken together, PP3M with its 3-month dosing interval is a unique option for relapse prevention in schizophrenia.

Paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics in recently diagnosed schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Relapse and acute exacerbation are common in schizophrenia and may impact treatment response and outcome. Evidence is conflicting in respect to superiority of long-acting injectable antipsychotic therapies versus oral antipsychotics in relapse prevention. This randomized controlled study assessed the efficacy of paliperidone palmitate versus oral antipsychotics for relapse prevention. METHOD: Eligible patients with a recent diagnosis of schizophrenia (within 1-5 years) were randomized 1:1 to paliperidone palmitate (n=376) or oral antipsychotic monotherapy (n=388) and entered a 2-week initial acute oral treatment phase. Patients who met predefined response criteria were eligible to enter the 24-month rater-blinded core treatment phase. Patients were evaluated for relapse, symptoms, functioning, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and tolerability. RESULTS: In the core treatment phase, time to relapse was significantly longer in the paliperidone palmitate (n=352) compared with the oral antipsychotics arm (n=363): 85% of patients were relapse-free at 469 versus 249 days (P=0.019). Significantly fewer patients receiving paliperidone palmitate met the relapse criteria (52 [14.8%] versus 76 [20.9%, oral antipsychotics]; P=0.032), representing a 29.4% relative risk reduction. For paliperidone palmitate, a significantly greater improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score on Day 8 (P=0.021) and a trend at endpoint (P=0.075) were observed. Functioning improvements were comparable between treatment arms. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: The observed time to relapse superiority of paliperidone palmitate over oral antipsychotics provides further evidence for the value of long-acting injectable antipsychotic therapies in the treatment of schizophrenia, including during the early stages of illness.

Radiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung carcinoma in the elderly (age ≥ 70 years).

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are underrepresented in trials that establish definitive chemoradiotherapy as the standard of care for inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). This study analyzed radiotherapy treatment delivery and outcomes at our institution according to elderly (≥ 70 years old) or younger (< 70 years) age. METHODS: Records of patients who received radiotherapy for stage III NSCLC between January 1998 and February 2010 were reviewed. Factors analyzed included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), weight loss, radiation therapy intent, and chemotherapy administered. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients with stage III NSCLC were analyzed (age range, 28-92 years). Elderly patients (n = 86) were more likely to have ECOG PS ≥ 2 (P < .05) and receive palliative treatment (P < .05). Elderly patients less often received concurrent chemoradiotherapy (P < .05) as well as cisplatin (P < .05). Median survival was 10.3 months for elderly patients compared with 17.2 months for younger patients (P < .05 ). In addition, elderly patients with ECOG PS (P < .05) as well as those who received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (P < .05) had inferior outcomes compared with otherwise similar younger patients. However, on multivariate analysis, elderly age was not associated (P = .428) with increased risk of death, whereas poor ECOG PS (≥ 2) was significant (P < .05). In elderly patients, definitive treatment (P < .05), chemotherapy administration (P < .05), and ECOG PS of 0-1 (P < .05) were associated with improved outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although elderly patients with stage III NSCLC experience inferior outcomes than younger patients with comparable disease, they are also more likely to receive suboptimal therapy. On multivariate analysis, advanced age was not associated with worse survival, which indicates that appropriately selected elderly patients should receive definitive chemoradiotherapy.