Ella J. Daly

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Frequency Study of Intravenous Ketamine in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression

OBJECTIVE Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate glutamate receptor antagonist, has demonstrated a rapid-onset antidepressant effect in patients with treatment-resistant depression. This study evaluated the efficacy of twice- and thrice-weekly intravenous administration of ketamine in sustaining initial antidepressant effects in patients with treatment-resistant depression. METHOD In a multicenter, double-blind study, adults (ages 18-64 years) with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to receive either intravenous ketamine (0.5 mg/kg of body weight) or intravenous placebo, administered over 40 minutes, either two or three times weekly, for up to 4 weeks. Patients who discontinued double-blind treatment after at least 2 weeks for lack of efficacy could enter an optional 2-week open-label phase to receive ketamine with the same frequency as in the double-blind phase. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to day 15 in total score on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). RESULTS In total, 67 (45 women) of 68 randomized patients received treatment. In the twice-weekly dosing groups, the mean change in MADRS score at day 15 was -18.4 (SD=12.0) for ketamine and -5.7 (SD=10.2) for placebo; in the thrice-weekly groups, it was -17.7 (SD=7.3) for ketamine and -3.1 (SD=5.7) for placebo. Similar observations were noted for ketamine during the open-label phase (twice-weekly, -12.2 [SD=12.8] on day 4; thrice-weekly, -14.0 [SD=12.5] on day 5). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Headache, anxiety, dissociation, nausea, and dizziness were the most common (≥20%) treatment-emergent adverse events. Dissociative symptoms occurred transiently and attenuated with repeated dosing. CONCLUSIONS Twice-weekly and thrice-weekly administration of ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg similarly maintained antidepressant efficacy over 15 days.

Intravenous Esketamine in Adult Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Double-Blind, Double-Randomization, Placebo-Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety and to explore the dose response of esketamine intravenous (IV) infusion in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). METHODS This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 30 patients with TRD. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive an IV infusion of .20 mg/kg or .40 mg/kg esketamine or placebo over 40 minutes on day 1. The primary end point was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score from day 1 (baseline) to day 2. Nonresponders who received placebo on day 1 were randomly assigned again 1:1 to IV esketamine .20 mg/kg or .40 mg/kg on day 4. Secondary efficacy and safety measures were also evaluated. RESULTS Of the enrolled patients, 97% (29 of 30) completed the study. The least squares mean changes (SE) from baseline to day 2 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score for the esketamine .20 mg/kg and .40 mg/kg dose groups were -16.8 (3.00) and -16.9 (2.61), respectively, and showed significant improvement (one-sided p = .001 for both groups) compared with placebo (-3.8 [2.97]). Esketamine showed a rapid (within 2 hours) and robust antidepressant effect. Treatment-emergent adverse events were dose dependent. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, nausea, and dissociation; the last-mentioned was transient and did not persist beyond 4 hours from the start of the esketamine infusion. CONCLUSIONS A rapid onset of robust antidepressant effects was observed in patients with TRD after a 40-minute IV infusion of either .20 mg/kg or .40 mg/kg of esketamine. The lower dose may allow for better tolerability while maintaining efficacy.

Barriers to implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression: an observational report on lessons learned in "real world" clinical settings

BackgroundDespite wide promotion, clinical practice guidelines have had limited effect in changing physician behavior. Effective implementation strategies to date have included: multifaceted interventions involving audit and feedback, local consensus processes, marketing; reminder systems, either manual or computerized; and interactive educational meetings. In addition, there is now growing evidence that contextual factors affecting implementation must be addressed such as organizational support (leadership procedures and resources) for the change and strategies to implement and maintain new systems.MethodsTo examine the feasibility and effectiveness of implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression (CDSS-D) in routine public mental health care in Texas, fifteen study clinicians (thirteen physicians and two advanced nurse practitioners) participated across five sites, accruing over 300 outpatient visits on 168 patients.ResultsIssues regarding computer literacy and hardware/software requirements were identified as initial barriers. Clinicians also reported concerns about negative impact on workflow and the potential need for duplication during the transition from paper to electronic systems of medical record keeping.ConclusionThe following narrative report based on observations obtained during the initial testing and use of a CDSS-D in clinical settings further emphasizes the importance of taking into account organizational factors when planning implementation of evidence-based guidelines or decision support within a system.

Randomized Clinical Study of a Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonist for the Treatment of Adults with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

AbstractBackground: Psychostimulants, including methylphenidate and amphetamine preparations, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adults. Histamine H3 receptors reside on non-histamine neurons and regulate other neurotransmitters (e.g. acetylcholine, noradrenaline [norepinephrine]) suggesting that H3 antagonists have the potential to improve attention and impulsivity. Research indicates that H3 receptor antagonists due to their novel mechanism of action may have a unique treatment effect offering an important alternative for the treatment of ADHD. Bavisant (JNJ-31001074) is a highly selective, orally active antagonist of the human H3 receptor with a novel mechanism of action, involving wakefulness and cognition, with potential as a treatment for ADHD. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of three dosages of bavisant compared with placebo in adults with ADHD. Study design: This randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study evaluated three dosages of bavisant (1 mg/day, 3 mg/day or 10 mg/day) and two active controls in adults with ADHD. The study consisted of a screening phase of up to 14 days, a 42-day double-blind treatment phase and a 7-day post-treatment follow-up phase. Efficacy and safety assessments were performed. Setting: The study was conducted at 37 study centres in the US from April 2009 through January 2010. Participants: Men and women aged 18–55 years with an established diagnosis of ADHD as confirmed by clinician and self-report diagnostic measures were enrolled. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned equally to one of six treatment groups: placebo, bavisant 1 mg/day, 3 mg/day or 10 mg/day, atomoxetine hydrochloride 80 mg/day or osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methyl-phenidate hydrochloride 54 mg/day. Main outcome measure: The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale, Version IV (ADHD-RS-IV) total score from baseline (day 1) to the end of the treatment phase (day 42), and included all randomized participants who received one or more doses of study drug and had baseline and one or more post-baseline assessments (intent-to-treat [ITT] population). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory tests and ECG readings. Results: 430 participants were randomized, 424 received one or more doses of study medication and 335 (78%) of those randomized completed the study. Study participants had a mean age of 33.9 years and were predominantly White men. Mean treatment duration ranged from 31.4 to 38.8 days across groups. Mean change from baseline in the total ADHD-RS-IV score at day 42 (primary efficacy endpoint) was −8.8 in the placebo group versus −9.3, −11.2 and −12.2 in the bavisant 1 mg/day, 3 mg/day and 10 mg/day groups, respectively; the change in the 10 mg/day group was not statistically superior to placebo (p = 0.161), and hence statistical comparisons of the 1 mg/day and 3 mg/day groups with placebo based on a step-down closed testing procedure were not performed. Mean change from baseline in the total ADHD-RS-IV score at day 42 was superior to placebo in the atomoxetine (−15.3) and OROS methylphenidate (−15.7) groups (p< 0.005). Secondary efficacy assessments demonstrated a similar pattern with a non-significant trend towards improvement in the bavisant groups. The two lower dosages showed a good tolerability profile, but the higher dosage of bavisant was less well tolerated, as evidenced by the incidence of total TEAEs (61.8%, 82.4%, 89.0%), and discontinuations due to TEAEs (4.4%, 7.4%, 19.2%) in the bavisant 1 mg/day, 3 mg/day and 10 mg/day groups, respectively, compared with 58.9% and 2.7%, respectively on placebo. In the atomoxetine and OROS methylphenidate groups, the incidence of total TEAEs was 83.8% and 82.4% and discontinuations due to TEAEs was 10.8% and 8.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Bavisant, a highly selective, wakefulness-promoting H3 antagonist, did not display significant clinical effectiveness in the treatment of adults with ADHD.Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00880217

A Computerized Decision Support System for Depression in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE In 2004, results from The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) showed better clinical outcomes for patients whose physicians adhered to a paper-and-pencil algorithm compared to patients who received standard clinical treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). However, implementation of and fidelity to the treatment algorithm among various providers was observed to be inadequate. A computerized decision support system (CDSS) for the implementation of the TMAP algorithm for depression has since been developed to improve fidelity and adherence to the algorithm. METHOD This was a 2-group, parallel design, clinical trial (one patient group receiving MDD treatment from physicians using the CDSS and the other patient group receiving usual care) conducted at 2 separate primary care clinics in Texas from March 2005 through June 2006. Fifty-five patients with MDD (DSM-IV criteria) with no significant difference in disease characteristics were enrolled, 32 of whom were treated by physicians using CDSS and 23 were treated by physicians using usual care. The studys objective was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a CDSS to assist physicians acutely treating patients with MDD compared to usual care in primary care. Primary efficacy outcomes for depression symptom severity were based on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)) evaluated by an independent rater. RESULTS Patients treated by physicians employing CDSS had significantly greater symptom reduction, based on the HDRS(17), than patients treated with usual care (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS The CDSS algorithm, utilizing measurement-based care, was superior to usual care for patients with MDD in primary care settings. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00551083.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study with JNJ-37822681, a novel, highly selective, fast dissociating D2 receptor antagonist in the treatment of acute exacerbation of schizophrenia ☆

JNJ-37822681 is a novel, highly selective dopamine D₂ receptor antagonist characterized by a rapid dissociation rate from the dopamine D₂ receptor. This profile was hypothesized to confer antipsychotic efficacy and improved tolerability. In this 12-week study, the efficacy and safety of JNJ-37822681 were evaluated in patients with an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to JNJ-37822681 (10-, 20- or 30-mg bid), olanzapine (15 mg once-daily), or placebo (for 6 weeks followed by olanzapine for 6 weeks). Of 498 randomized patients, 298 (60%) completed the study. All JNJ-37822681 dose groups and the olanzapine group showed significantly greater reduction in PANSS total score from baseline to week 6 versus placebo (all p-values < 0.001). Least-squares adjusted mean changes from baseline to week 6 in PANSS total score were: -6.4 (placebo); -18.4 (10 mg JNJ-37822681), -17.7 (20 mg JNJ-37822681), -20.0 (30 mg JNJ-37822681) and -22.9 (olanzapine). All JNJ-37822681 groups showed significant improvement versus placebo from baseline to week 6 in the PANSS subscales, Marder factors, Clinical Global Impression of Severity, and in the Subjective Well-Being on Neuroleptics scale (all p-values < 0.05). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with JNJ-37822681 were insomnia (17%) and akathisia (13%). Incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms were dose-related and were comparable for JNJ-37822681 10 mg bid and olanzapine groups. All JNJ-37822681 dose groups showed lesser weight gain compared with olanzapine. The efficacy and tolerability profile of the JNJ-37822681 10 mg bid was consistent with the study hypothesis.

Efficacy and safety of an adjunctive mGlu2 receptor positive allosteric modulator to a SSRI/SNRI in anxious depression.

This phase 2a, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate, efficacy, safety and tolerability of JNJ-40411813/ADX71149, a novel metabotropic glutamate 2 receptor positive allosteric modulator as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) with significant anxiety symptoms. Eligible patients (18-64 years) had a DSM-IV diagnosis of MDD, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS17) score of ≥ 18, HDRS17 anxiety/somatization factor score of ≥ 7, and an insufficient response to current treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. The doubly-randomized, 8-week double-blind treatment phase was comprised of two 4-week periods, from which a combined test statistic was generated, with pre-determined weights assigned to each of the 2 treatment periods. Period 1: patients (n=121) were randomly assigned (1:1) to JNJ-40411813 (n=62; 50mg to 150 mg b.i.d, flexibly dosed) or placebo (n=59); Period 2: placebo-treated patients (n=22) who continued to meet entry severity criteria were re-randomized (1:1) to JNJ-40411813 or placebo, while other patients underwent sham re-randomization and continued on their same treatment. Of 121 randomized patients, 100 patients (82.6%) were completers. No efficacy signal was detected on the primary endpoint, the 6-item Hamilton Anxiety Subscale (HAM-A6, p=0.51). Efficacy signals (based on prespecified 1-sided p<0.20) were evident on several secondary outcome measures of both depression (HDRS17 total score, 6-item subscale of HDRS17 assessing core depressive symptoms [HAM-D6], and Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology [IDS-C30]) and anxiety (HDRS17 anxiety/somatization factor, IDS-C30 anxiety subscale). Although well-tolerated, the results do not suggest efficacy for JNJ-40411813 as an adjunctive treatment for patients with MDD with significant anxious symptoms in the dose range studied.

Number needed to treat and number needed to harm with paliperidone palmitate relative to long-acting haloperidol, bromperidol, and fluphenazine decanoate for treatment of patients with schizophrenia

Background: We analyzed data retrieved through a PubMed search of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables (haloperidol decanoate, bromperidol decanoate, and fluphenazine decanoate), and a company database of paliperidone palmitate, to compare the benefit-risk ratio in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: From the eight studies that met our selection criteria, two efficacy and six safety parameters were selected for calculation of number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) using comparisons of active drug relative to placebo. NNTs for prevention of relapse ranged from 2 to 5 for paliperidone palmitate, haloperidol decanoate, and fluphenazine decanoate, indicating a moderate to large effect size. Results: Among the selected maintenance studies, NNH varied considerably, but indicated a lower likelihood of encountering extrapyramidal side effects, such as akathisia, tremor, and tardive dyskinesia, with paliperidone palmitate versus placebo than with first-generation antipsychotic depot agents versus placebo. This was further supported by an overall higher NNH for paliperidone palmitate versus placebo with respect to anticholinergic use and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale positive score. LHH for preventing relapse versus use of anticholinergics was 15 for paliperidone palmitate and 3 for fluphenazine decanoate, favoring paliperidone palmitate. Conclusion: Overall, paliperidone palmitate had a similar NNT and a more favorable NNH compared with the first-generation long-acting injectables assessed.

The relationship between adverse events during selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment for major depressive disorder and nonremission in the suicide assessment methodology study.

Little is known about the association between antidepressant treatment-emergent adverse events and symptom nonremission in major depressive disorder. The objective of the current analysis was to determine whether particular baseline symptoms or treatment-emergent symptoms (adverse events) during the first 2 weeks are associated with nonremission after 8 weeks of treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Outpatients clinically diagnosed with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder were recruited from 6 primary and 9 psychiatric care sites. Participants (n = 206) were treated with an SSRI antidepressant (citalopram [20-40 mg/d], escitalopram [10-20 mg/d], fluoxetine [20-40 mg/d], paroxetine [20-40 mg/d], paroxetine CR [25-37.5 mg/d], or sertraline [50-150 mg/d]) for 8 weeks. Remission was defined as having a score of 5 or less on the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician-Rated at week 8, or using last observation carried forward. Adverse events were identified using the 55-item Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Events-Systematic Inquiry completed by participants at baseline and week 2. Findings indicated that the emergence of adverse events of weakness/fatigue, strange feeling, and trouble catching breath/hyperventilation at week 2 were independently associated with lack of remission even after controlling for the potential confounders of baseline depressive severity, anxious symptoms, antidepressant medication, chronic depression, race, burden of general medical comorbidity, and time in study. Hearing/seeing things appeared to have a protective effect. In conclusion, during SSRI treatment, the adverse events of weakness/fatigue, feeling strange, and trouble catching breath/hyperventilation are associated with nonremission, possibly due to lower adherence, early attrition, difficulty increasing the dose, and reduced efficacy.

Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine Adjunctive to Oral Antidepressant Therapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Approximately one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not respond to available antidepressants. Objective To assess the efficacy, safety, and dose-response of intranasal esketamine hydrochloride in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design, Setting, and Participants This phase 2, double-blind, doubly randomized, delayed-start, placebo-controlled study was conducted in multiple outpatient referral centers from January 28, 2014, to September 25, 2015. The study consisted of 4 phases: (1) screening, (2) double-blind treatment (days 1-15), composed of two 1-week periods, (3) optional open-label treatment (days 15-74), and (4) posttreatment follow-up (8 weeks). One hundred twenty-six adults with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of MDD and history of inadequate response to 2 or more antidepressants (ie, TRD) were screened, 67 were randomized, and 60 completed both double-blind periods. Intent-to-treat analysis was used in evaluation of the findings. Interventions In period 1, participants were randomized (3:1:1:1) to placebo (n = 33), esketamine 28 mg (n = 11), 56 mg (n = 11), or 84 mg (n = 12) twice weekly. In period 2, 28 placebo-treated participants with moderate-to-severe symptoms were rerandomized (1:1:1:1) to 1 of the 4 treatment arms; those with mild symptoms continued receiving placebo. Participants continued their existing antidepressant treatment during the study. During the open-label phase, dosing frequency was reduced from twice weekly to weekly, and then to every 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline to day 8 (each period) in the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Results Sixty-seven participants (38 women, mean [SD] age, 44.7 [10.0] years) were included in the efficacy and safety analyses. Change (least squares mean [SE] difference vs placebo) in MADRS total score (both periods combined) in all 3 esketamine groups was superior to placebo (esketamine 28 mg: −4.2 [2.09], P = .02; 56 mg: −6.3 [2.07], P = .001; 84 mg: −9.0 [2.13], P < .001), with a significant ascending dose-response relationship (P < .001). Improvement in depressive symptoms appeared to be sustained (−7.2 [1.84]) despite reduced dosing frequency in the open-label phase. Three of 56 (5%) esketamine-treated participants during the double-blind phase vs none receiving placebo and 1 of 57 participants (2%) during the open-label phase had adverse events that led to study discontinuation (1 event each of syncope, headache, dissociative syndrome, and ectopic pregnancy). Conclusions and Relevance In this first clinical study to date of intranasal esketamine for TRD, antidepressant effect was rapid in onset and dose related. Response appeared to persist for more than 2 months with a lower dosing frequency. Results support further investigation in larger trials. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01998958