Efficacy and safety of aticaprant, a kappa receptor antagonist, adjunctive to oral SSRI/SNRI antidepressant in major depressive disorder: results of a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

This was a double-blind, randomized, phase 2 study of adults (18-64 years) with DSM-5 diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD), with moderate-to-severe episode severity (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] ≥25) despite an adequate course with ongoing antidepressant for ≥6 weeks to ≤12 months. Following a double-blind placebo lead-in period (up to 3 weeks), participants were randomized to receive once daily aticaprant 10 mg or continue placebo, added to their ongoing treatment, for 6 weeks. Of 184 participants enrolled, 169 were included in safety analyses (aticaprant n = 85, placebo n = 84) and 166 in full intent-to-treat (fITT) efficacy analyses; 121 placebo lead-in non-responders (<30% reduction in MADRS total score) in fITT were included in enriched ITT (eITT) analyses. Improvement (least squares mean difference [upper limit 1-sided 80% CI] versus placebo) in MADRS total score at week 6 for aticaprant was significant versus placebo (eITT: -2.1 [-1.09], 1-sided p = 0.044; effect size (ES) 0.23; fITT -3.1 [2.21], 1-sided p = 0.002; ES 0.36). The between-group difference was larger among participants with Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) score greater/equal to versus less than baseline median SHAPS. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events reported for aticaprant (versus placebo) were headache (11.8% versus 7.1%), diarrhea (8.2% versus 2.4%), nasopharyngitis (5.9% versus 2.4%), and pruritus (5.9% versus 0%). One participant (1.2%) in each arm discontinued treatment due to an adverse event. In this study of participants with MDD and inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI, adjunctive treatment with aticaprant significantly reduced depressive symptoms versus placebo, without resulting in significant safety signals, supporting further investigation in larger trials.

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.

Cardiac Safety of Esketamine Nasal Spray in Treatment-Resistant Depression: Results from the Clinical Development Program.

BACKGROUND: An intranasal formulation of esketamine, combined with an oral antidepressant, is approved in the USA and the European Union for adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Transient cardiovascular stimulatory effects have been reported with ketamine. METHODS: Cardiovascular effects of esketamine nasal spray, combined with an oral antidepressant, were evaluated in 1708 esketamine-treated adults with TRD in six trials (five double-blind, placebo-controlled (486 placebo-treated patients); one open-label) of 4-52 weeks' duration. Patients with established cardiovascular disease, including uncontrolled hypertension (> 140/> 90 mmHg), history of hypertensive crisis, or clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities, were excluded from enrollment. Effects on cardiac repolarization were assessed in a phase I randomized, positive- and active-controlled thorough corrected QT (QTc) interval study. For adverse events, odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval] for esketamine/antidepressant versus antidepressant/placebo was calculated. RESULTS: Adverse events related to increased BP were reported in 12.8% of all esketamine-treated patients (in double-blind trials: esketamine/antidepressant 11.6% vs. antidepressant/placebo 3.9%; OR 3.2 [1.9-5.8]). Among the patients without a history of hypertension, new antihypertensive medication was initiated by 2.1% (6/280) of patients in the esketamine/antidepressant group versus 1.2% (2/171) of patients in the antidepressant/placebo group, in the double-blinded studies. Adverse events related to abnormal heart rate were reported in 3.0% of all esketamine-treated patients (in double-blind trials: 1.6% vs. 0.8%; OR 1.9 [0.5-8.6]). Overall, three cardiovascular adverse events related to BP increase were reported as serious and severe, and there was one fatal event considered unrelated (acute cardiac failure). BP increases reached the maximum postdose value within ~ 40 min of esketamine dosing and returned to the predose range by ~ 1.5 h postdose. In two studies (4-week duration, age 18-64 years), the largest mean maximum systolic/diastolic postdose BP increases were 13.3/8.7 mmHg for esketamine/antidepressant and 6.1/4.9 mmHg for antidepressant/placebo, and in a short-term elderly study (age ≥ 65 years) were 16.0/9.5 and 11.1/6.8 mmHg, respectively. Across studies/study phases, < 2% of patients discontinued esketamine due to adverse events of increased BP and tachycardia. No clinically relevant effect on ECG parameters was observed. Therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of esketamine did not prolong the QTcF (QT corrected by Fridericia's equation) interval (baseline-corrected values of - 2.02 to 2.16 ms, and - 3.51 to 4.89 ms, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: BP elevations following esketamine dosing are generally transient, asymptomatic, and not associated with serious cardiovascular safety sequalae. Further evaluation of long-term cardiovascular outcomes is warranted.

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

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

Use of antipsychotic blood levels in clinician decision making: A cross-over study using clinical vignettes of patients with schizophrenia.

The cause of treatment failure of antipsychotic medications is often difficult to determine in patients with schizophrenia. Evaluation of antipsychotic blood levels (ABLs) may aid clinicians in determining the cause of antipsychotic failure. The Clinical Assessment of the Schizophrenia Patient (CASP) was developed to evaluate clinical decision making during outpatient visits. The CASP assesses changes in medications, psychosocial treatments, and acute interventions along with factors influencing clinical decision making. Nine vignettes representative of clinical situations in patients with schizophrenia were created in two versions (one with ABLs, one without ABLs). The CASP was used to evaluate clinical decisions using the vignettes. Thirty-four clinicians participated in the study. In 8 out of 9 vignettes, most clinicians (at least 89.7%) made a different clinical decision with ABLs compared to without ABLs. In assessing the usefulness of ABLs, a majority (60.7%-85.7%, depending on the vignette) of clinicians responded that ABLs changed their clinical decision for 8 vignettes. Most clinicians (79%-93%) responded that they were more confident in their decisions with ABL information. This study demonstrated that ABLs have the potential to influence clinical decision making in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia.

Relationship between antipsychotic blood levels and treatment failure during the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study.

OBJECTIVE: Antipsychotic blood levels (ABLs) may help identify patients at risk for treatment failure. Reference ranges (RR) for plasma concentrations of ABLs that account for between-patient variability were developed for risperidone and olanzapine based on population pharmacokinetic models. The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) collected clinical outcomes and ABLs, allowing testing of the relationship of ABLs with outcomes. METHODS: ABLs from 694 patients who were randomized to olanzapine or risperidone were compared to the 80% RRs and were assessed as below or within/above the RR. Treatment failure was defined per any of these criteria: (1) emergency room visit for psychiatric reasons, (2) hospitalization for psychiatric reasons, (3) adverse event of completed suicide, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt, (4) assaultive behavior, (5) arrested or jailed, (6) 2-point increase from baseline in Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, (7) 25% increase in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score. Patients assessed with treatment failure within 100 days of drug concentration measurement were analyzed. RESULTS: Treatment failure occurred in 126 of 323 patients. The proportion of patients with ABLs below RR was 18.3% (59/323) compared to 10% expected in a fully adherent population. Among the 59 with ABLs below RR, 50.8% had treatment failure (compared to 36.4% for the 264 with ABLs within/above RR). The difference between groups was significant (odds ratio = 1.810; 95% CI = 1.025, 3.197; p = 0.0408). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of CATIE data showed that ABLs within the context of RRs may identify patients with higher risk of relapse.

A randomized, placebo- and active-controlled study of paliperidone extended-release as maintenance treatment in patients with bipolar I disorder after an acute manic or mixed episode.

BACKGROUND: Paliperidone ER monotherapy was efficacious in treating acute mania in two 3-week studies in patients with bipolar I disorder. We assessed its efficacy in a study investigating maintenance treatment of clinically stable patients with this disorder. METHODS: Patients (n=766), aged 18 to 65 years inclusive, with current manic or mixed episodes were initially randomized (4:1) to flexibly-dosed paliperidone ER (3-12 mg/day) or olanzapine (5-20 mg/day; 3-week acute treatment phase); responders continued the same treatment (12-week continuation phase). Patients on paliperidone ER who achieved remission during this phase were randomized (1:1) to fixed-dose paliperidone ER (n=152) or placebo (n=148); those on olanzapine continued to receive that at fixed dose (n=83) (maintenance phase). RESULTS: Median time to recurrence of any mood symptoms (primary endpoint) was: 558 days (paliperidone ER), 283 days (placebo) and not observed with olanzapine (<50% of patients experienced recurrence). Time to recurrence of any mood symptoms was significantly longer with paliperidone ER than placebo (p=0.017; based on weighted Z-test at 0.0198 significance level; hazard ratio [placebo: paliperidone ER; unweighted 95% confidence interval]: 1.43 [1.03; 1.98]); the difference was significant for preventing recurrence of manic, but not depressive, symptoms. Treatment-emergent adverse events (maintenance phase) occurred more often in olanzapine group (64%) than placebo (59%) or paliperidone ER groups (55%). LIMITATIONS: Responder-enriched design prevents extrapolation of data to patients not previously stabilized on paliperidone ER. CONCLUSIONS: Paliperidone ER significantly delayed the time to recurrence of any mood symptoms, versus placebo, in patients with bipolar I disorder. No new safety concerns emerged.

Efficacy and Safety of Paliperidone Extended Release 1.5 mg/day-A Double-blind, Placebo- and Active-Controlled, Study in the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Paliperidone extended-release (paliperidone ER) is an approved oral antipsychotic medication (dosing range 3-12 mg/day) for treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in adults. METHODS: In this 3-arm, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group study, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg was assessed to determine the lowest efficacious dose in patients (N = 201) with acute schizophrenia. Paliperidone ER 6 mg was included for assay sensitivity. RESULTS: Patients (intent-to-treat analysis set) had a mean age of 39.4 years; 74% were men, 43% Asian, and 40% black. The baseline mean (SD) Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score was 92.6 (13.02) and the mean (SD) change from baseline to endpoint was: placebo group, -11.4 (20.81); paliperidone ER 1.5 mg group, -8.9 (23.31); and paliperidone ER 6 mg group, -15.7 (26.25). Differences between paliperidone groups versus placebo were not significant (paliperidone ER 1.5 mg [p = 0.582], paliperidone ER 6 mg, [p = 0.308]). Safety results of paliperidone ER 1.5 mg and placebo were comparable. The most frequently reported treatment emergent adverse events (≥10%) were: placebo group-headache (15.6%) and psychotic disorder (14.1%); paliperidone ER 1.5 mg group-insomnia (13.6%); and paliperidone ER 6 mg group-headache (11.4%), insomnia (10%), and tremor (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, paliperidone ER 1.5 mg did not demonstrate efficacy in patients with acute schizophrenia. A markedly high placebo response was noted. Assay sensitivity with the 6 mg dose was not established. Paliperidone ER 1.5 mg was generally tolerable with a safety profile comparable to placebo.

Safety and tolerability of deltoid and gluteal injections of paliperidone palmitate in schizophrenia.

Paliperidone palmitate is an investigational, injectable atypical antipsychotic. The safety and tolerability of initiating treatment with paliperidone palmitate via deltoid versus gluteal injections given once monthly, and of switching injection sites, in adults with stable schizophrenia were assessed. In this crossover trial, stable outpatients (N=252) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to 3 dose groups (paliperidone palmitate 50, 75, or 100 mg eq.) and 2 treatment sequences (blinded to dose): deltoid muscle (period 1 [13 weeks]) followed by gluteal muscle (period 2 [12 weeks]) or the reverse. The intent-to-treat analysis set had 249 patients: mean age=43 (SD: 12.8) years; 57% men, 81% white, baseline mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score=56 (SD: 11.5). A total of 170 (68%) patients completed the study, with a similar proportion completing each treatment sequence. The incidence of systemic treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between the 2 injection sites across doses during period 1 (deltoid [D]: 61% to 67%; gluteus [G]: 58% to 65%), and during the last 8 weeks of the 2 study periods (DG: 32% to 45% [period 1], 29% to 42% [period 2]; GD: 31% to 40% [period 1], 30% to 41% [period 2]). During the first treatment week, median plasma paliperidone concentrations were higher with treatment initiation in the deltoid muscle compared with the gluteal muscle. At apparent steady state, there was little difference in plasma paliperidone concentrations between the deltoid and gluteus sites for a given dose. Local tolerability was slightly better with gluteal injections. Patient preference for injection sites differed between geographical regions, e.g. patients from the US preferred deltoid to gluteal sites. The most common (>or=5% overall) TEAEs were: (period 1) insomnia, anxiety, headache, and agitation; and (period 2) insomnia, psychotic disorder, weight increased, and tachycardia. Paliperidone palmitate treatment was tolerated, irrespective of injection site, and thus could offer the choice of administration into either the deltoid or gluteal muscle to meet patient and physician preference.

A randomized comparative study of levofloxacin versus amoxicillin/clavulanate for treatment of infants and young children with recurrent or persistent acute otitis media.

BACKGROUND: The need for alternative antimicrobial therapy for recurrent and persistent acute otitis media (AOM) in children has raised interest in assessing the efficacy and safety of fluoroquinolones for treatment of these infections. METHODS: In an evaluator-blinded, active-comparator, noninferiority, multicenter study, children (6 months to <5 years) were randomized 1:1 to receive levofloxacin (10 mg/kg twice daily) or amoxicillin/clavulanate (14:1; amoxicillin 45 mg/kg twice daily) for 10 days, with evaluations 4-6 days of therapy (visit 2), 2-5 days after completing therapy (visit 3), and 10-17 days after last dose (visit 4). Primary outcome was clinical cure at visit 3 based on resolution of clinical signs and symptoms of AOM. RESULTS: A total of 1650 children were randomized and 1305 were clinically evaluable at visit 3 (630 levofloxacin, 675 comparator). Clinical cure rates were 72.4% (456 of 630) in levofloxacin-treated and 69.9% (472 of 675) in amoxicillin/clavulanate-treated children. Cure rates were also similar for levofloxacin and comparator for each age group (< or =24 months: 68.9% versus 66.2%; >24 months: 76.9% versus 75.1%; respectively). Cure rates at visit 4 were 74.9% and 73.8% in levofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanate groups, respectively. The upper limits of the confidence intervals were less than the noninferiority margin of 10% indicating that levofloxacin treatment is noninferior to comparator treatment overall and in both infants (6 months to 2 years) and children 2-5 years. No differences between treatment groups regarding the frequency or type of adverse events were apparent. CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin was not inferior to amoxicillin/clavulanate for the treatment of recurrent and/or persistent AOM in infants and children.

Comparative study of levofloxacin in the treatment of children with community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Levofloxacin has established efficacy and safety in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adults, and its use as an alternative therapy for children with CAP has been proposed. OBJECTIVE: Assess the clinical efficacy and safety of levofloxacin compared with standard of care antibiotic therapy in the treatment of CAP in children aged 6 months to 16 years. METHODS: In an open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial, children with CAP were randomized 3:1 to receive levofloxacin or comparator antimicrobial therapy (0.5 to <5 years: amoxicillin/clavulanate or ceftriaxone; > or =5 years: clarithromycin or ceftriaxone with clarithromycin or erythromycin lactobinate) for 10 days. The primary outcome was cure rates at the test-of-cure visit (10-17 days after completing treatment) as determined by symptoms, physical examination, and chest radiography. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty-eight children were enrolled and 539 (405 levofloxacin-treated, 134 comparator-treated) were clinically evaluable at test-of-cure visit. Clinical cure rates were 94.3% (382 of 405) in levofloxacin-treated and 94.0% (126 of 134) in comparator-treated children. Cure rates were also similar for levofloxacin and comparator for each age group (<5 years, 92.2% versus 90.8%; > or =5 years, 96.5% versus 97.1%; respectively) and for children categorized as being at higher risk for severe disease. Mycoplasma pneumoniae was the most frequently identified cause of pneumonia (230 children). Levofloxacin was as well tolerated as comparators, with similar type and incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin was as well tolerated and effective as standard-of-care antibiotics for the treatment of CAP in infants and children.

An open-label, double tympanocentesis study of levofloxacin therapy in children with, or at high risk for, recurrent or persistent acute otitis media.

BACKGROUND: Levofloxacin has excellent activity against common respiratory pathogens and therefore is likely to be effective in treating children with persistent or recurrent otitis media. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of levofloxacin treatment in the eradication of bacterial pathogens from the middle ear fluid (MEF) of children with, or at high risk for, persistent or recurrent otitis media. METHODS: An open-label multicenter trial was conducted that involved tympanocentesis at entry and selectively 3 to 5 days after starting levofloxacin (10 mg/kg twice a day for 10 days). RESULTS: : Two hundred five children (80% < or =2 years) were enrolled. One child did not have a confirmed diagnosis of acute otitis media and did not return for follow-up visits. Of the remaining 204 children, 94 (46%) had bilateral infection and 63 (31%) were receiving antimicrobials immediately before entry. One hundred five isolates of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis and Streptococcus. pyogenes were recovered in pure or mixed cultures. All isolates were susceptible to levofloxacin. During-treatment bacterial eradication from MEF occurred in 88% (78 of 89) of bacteriologically evaluable patients, including 90% (65 of 72) of children < or =24 months of age. Bacteria initially isolated from MEF were eradicated in 31 of 37 (84%) children infected with S. pneumoniae and in 54 of 54 (100%) children infected with H. influenzae. Overall, clinical success rate after therapy was 94% for the total study population and 92% for the bacteriologically evaluable population. Levofloxacin was well tolerated. Vomiting (4%) was the most common treatment-limiting adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin was safe and effective in treating and eradicating common bacterial pathogens from MEF in children with, or at risk for, recurrent or persistent otitis media.