Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-xxrs7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:47:30.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Esketamine clinical trials: reply to Maju et al.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2020

C. Gastaldon*
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
D. Papola
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
G. Ostuzzi
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
C. Barbui
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: Chiara Gastaldon, E-mail: chiara.gastaldon@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Maju et al. provided clarifications on important and controversial issues related to esketamine clinical trial data, in response to a vivid debate triggered by the marketing authorisation recently granted by this new medicine. In this commentary, we reply to their comments attempting to critically discuss the evidence base needed to obtain regulatory approval.

Type
Epidemiology in Clinical Psychopharmacology
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020

We cordially thank Maju et al. and colleagues for providing clarifications on important and controversial issues related to esketamine clinical trial data (Gastaldon et al., Reference Gastaldon, Papola, Ostuzzi and Barbui2020; Maju et al., Reference Maju, Daly, Popova, Heerlein, Canuso and Drevets2020). These clarifications are crucial in light of the vivid debate triggered by the marketing authorisation recently granted by this new medicine.

One of the core aspects of this debate derives from the definition of clinical significance threshold. Maju et al. commented that the difference reported between esketamine and placebo in the only positive esketamine short-term efficacy trial (TRANSFORM-2), subsequently confirmed by a meta-analysis of the three existing short-term efficacy trials (Gastaldon et al., Reference Gastaldon, Papola, Ostuzzi and Barbui2020; Maju et al., Reference Maju, Daly, Popova, Heerlein, Canuso and Drevets2020), is clinically significant. We kindly disagree with this interpretation. Indeed, the efficacy results of the TRANSFORM-2 trial (mean change = 4.4 MADRS points) and of the meta-analysis (mean change = 4.08 MADRS points; 95% confidence interval 1.99 to 6.18) are aligned, favouring esketamine over placebo. However, establishing a minimal clinically relevant difference is contentious (Naudet and Cristea, Reference Naudet and Cristea2020), and the literature provides contradictory suggestions. Some authors suggested a threshold for minimal clinical significance of 2 MADRS points, whereas others considered a difference of at least 7–9 MADRS points as clinically significant (Duru and Fantino, Reference Duru and Fantino2008; Leucht et al., Reference Leucht, Fennema, Engel, Kaspers-Janssen, Lepping and Szegedi2017). Ultimately, any threshold should be weighed considering the drug's tolerability and acceptability profile, as indicated by Naudet and Cristea (Reference Naudet and Cristea2020). As esketamine carries well-known risks, such as dissociation and potential of abuse (Schatzberg, Reference Schatzberg2019; Turner, Reference Turner2019), we believe it is reasonable and cautious to consider a higher threshold compared to other less risky medications – as it was actually done in the TRANSFORM-2 trial by setting a threshold of 6.5 MADRS points for clinical significance, to be used for power estimations (Popova et al., Reference Popova, Daly, Trivedi, Cooper, Lane, Lim, Mazzucco, Hough, Thase, Shelton, Molero, Vieta, Bajbouj, Manji, Drevets and Singh2019).

Maju et al. commented that the 6.5 MADRS threshold was not used for establishing a minimal clinically significant difference (Maju et al., Reference Maju, Daly, Popova, Heerlein, Canuso and Drevets2020), but only for power estimation purposes. We have two comments on this. First, if 6.5 MADRS points do not reflect a minimal clinically significant difference than one wonders why it was used for the power calculation. Second, any positive result below this pre-set threshold carries a risk of being a false positive, as Naudet and Cristea recently pointed out (Naudet and Cristea, Reference Naudet and Cristea2020). In general, the lower the power of a study, the lower the probability that a statistically significant observed finding (p < 0.05) actually reflects a true effect. Even when an underpowered study detects a true effect, the estimate of the effect magnitude may be exaggerated (Button et al., Reference Button, Ioannidis, Mokrysz, Nosek, Flint, Robinson and Munafo2013). In policy-making, few things are less desirable than making decisions relying on irresolute evidence. For this reason, we suggested that the regulatory agencies should consider regulatory meta-analyses during the drug approval process (Barbui et al., Reference Barbui, Purgato and Ostuzzi2017), as pooling results from various studies on the same research question may overcome the power limitation of individual studies.

Further, Maju et al. suggested that the difference observed at day 2 between esketamine and placebo is unlikely to be related to esketamine antidepressant effect. This seems very reasonable, as this rapid change may likely be related to a transient psychotropic effect induced by esketamine, and not to an actual and lasting recovery from depression (Moncrieff, Reference Moncrieff2018).

We previously commented that the FDA and EMA made approval decisions only considering four trials (TRANSFORM-1, -2, -3 and SUSTAIN-1) (Daly et al., Reference Daly, Trivedi, Janik, Li, Zhang, Li, Lane, Lim, Duca, Hough, Thase, Zajecka, Winokur, Divacka, Fagiolini, Cubala, Bitter, Blier, Shelton, Molero, Manji, Drevets and Singh2019; Fedgchin et al., Reference Fedgchin, Trivedi, Daly, Melkote, Lane, Lim, Vitagliano, Blier, Fava, Liebowitz, Ravindran, Gaillard, Ameele, Preskorn, Manji, Hough, Drevets and Singh2019; Popova et al., Reference Popova, Daly, Trivedi, Cooper, Lane, Lim, Mazzucco, Hough, Thase, Shelton, Molero, Vieta, Bajbouj, Manji, Drevets and Singh2019; Gastaldon et al., Reference Gastaldon, Papola, Ostuzzi and Barbui2020; Ochs-Ross et al., Reference Ochs-Ross, Daly, Zhang, Lane, Lim, Morrison, Hough, Manji, Drevets, Sanacora, Steffens, Adler, McShane, Gaillard, Wilkinson and Singh2020), and that none of these studies provided long-term data. Maju et al. responded that in the meantime another trial was concluded, SUSTAIN-2. We argue, however, that the findings of SUSTAIN-2 were not available at the time of FDA and EMA evaluation, and therefore only short-term data were considered during the approval process. We believe that this is a major aspect, as regulatory decisions were taken regardless of long-term information on medicines that may have tolerability and safety risks.

Another point raised in our commentary, as well as in other similar comments (Cristea and Naudet, Reference Cristea and Naudet2019; Schatzberg, Reference Schatzberg2019; Turner, Reference Turner2019), refers to the need for further data to support esketamine benefits in maintenance treatment. Maju et al. reported that an additional trial was required by the FDA, since there was only one short-term efficacy trial with positive results at the time of FDA approval (Popova et al., Reference Popova, Daly, Trivedi, Cooper, Lane, Lim, Mazzucco, Hough, Thase, Shelton, Molero, Vieta, Bajbouj, Manji, Drevets and Singh2019). Consequently, a withdrawal trial was designed in which participants achieving remission or response after 12–16 weeks of esketamine treatment were randomised to discontinue or continue esketamine (Daly et al., Reference Daly, Trivedi, Janik, Li, Zhang, Li, Lane, Lim, Duca, Hough, Thase, Zajecka, Winokur, Divacka, Fagiolini, Cubala, Bitter, Blier, Shelton, Molero, Manji, Drevets and Singh2019). Patients randomised to discontinue esketamine showed higher relapse rates compared to patients continuing esketamine. We reason that this effect might be related either to esketamine efficacy (as claimed by Maju et al.) or to a detrimental potential of esketamine discontinuation. As a matter of fact, it cannot be excluded that withdrawal symptoms biased the outcome assessment (Turner, Reference Turner2019). In particular, the abrupt interruption of esketamine might have contributed to depressive symptoms via withdrawal phenomena, raising doubts on the benefits of esketamine maintenance treatment (Schatzberg, Reference Schatzberg2019).

Maju et al. commented that the safety profile of esketamine is well known from phase 1 and 2 studies and that the drug is safe (Maju et al., Reference Maju, Daly, Popova, Heerlein, Canuso and Drevets2020). Our meta-analysis, based on data submitted to FDA and EMA, detected a significantly worse acceptability profile of esketamine compared to placebo, with a higher proportion of participants dropping out due to any reasons (relative risk 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.02–2.60, three studies, 711 participants, no heterogeneity) (Gastaldon et al., Reference Gastaldon, Papola, Ostuzzi and Barbui2020). Similarly, the incidence of dissociation was seven times higher for participants taking esketamine in comparison with those taking placebo, with approximately 25% of esketamine-treated patients experiencing dissociation during treatment (Gastaldon et al., Reference Gastaldon, Papola, Ostuzzi and Barbui2020). Although some authors hypothesised that the experience of dissociation might mediate the antidepressant effect, nonetheless it remains a severe adverse effect both in the short-term and in the long-term. In the long-term, additionally, other potentially serious adverse effects have been suggested, including even persistent schizophrenia-like symptoms after prolonged use (Molero et al., Reference Molero, Ramos-Quiroga, Martin-Santos, Calvo-Sánchez, Gutiérrez-Rojas and Meana2018, Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen, Chen, Chang, Huang and Xu2020).

Maju et al. claimed that the SUSTAIN-1 trial (Daly et al., Reference Daly, Trivedi, Janik, Li, Zhang, Li, Lane, Lim, Duca, Hough, Thase, Zajecka, Winokur, Divacka, Fagiolini, Cubala, Bitter, Blier, Shelton, Molero, Manji, Drevets and Singh2019) provided long-term data (Maju et al., Reference Maju, Daly, Popova, Heerlein, Canuso and Drevets2020). In our opinion, a trial with a follow-up of 2 weeks can hardly be considered a long-term study. Current guidelines suggest at least 6–8 months (24–32 weeks) of maintenance treatment for people with the first episode of major depression and longer treatment duration for patients with recurrent episodes (APA, 2010; NICE, 2018). It is therefore not surprising that patients of the SUSTAIN-1 trial discontinuing treatment after just 12 or 16 weeks of treatment showed more relapse episodes than those continuing treatment. Doctors still do not know for how long esketamine should be prescribed, and which long-term effects and side effects are to be expected. We argue that this lack of information is a real disservice to people suffering from depression.

In conclusion, considering the notable uncertainty on tolerability and efficacy, both in the short- and in long-term, we argue that regulatory authorities should have to be more cautious in evaluating the approval of this drug (Cristea and Naudet, Reference Cristea and Naudet2019; Schatzberg, Reference Schatzberg2019). Now that esketamine is on the market, it is up to national medicine agencies to wisely regulate its use. In the UK, for example, the National Institute for health and Care Excellence (NICE) decided not to recommend esketamine for use in clinical practice based on similar considerations (NICE, 2020; Mahase, Reference Mahase2020). Waiting for new evidence on esketamine efficacy and tolerability, we hope that other national agencies will provide guidance based on a careful evaluation of currently available evidence.

Financial support

No financial support was received for this paper from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None.

Footnotes

This Section of Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences appears in each issue of the Journal to stress the role of the epidemiological approach to promote advances in the field of clinical psychopharmacology, with a particular attention to controversial findings. The ultimate aims are to help develop a more critical attitude towards the results of research studies published in the international literature, to promote original research projects with higher methodological standards, and to implement the most relevant results of research in every-day clinical practice. These contributions are written in house by the journal's editorial team or commissioned by the Section Editor (no more than 1000 words, short unstructured abstract, 4 key-words, one Table or Figure and up to ten references).

Corrado Barbui, Section Editor

References

American Psychiatric Association (2010 ) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (3rd Edn). Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
Barbui, C, Purgato, M and Ostuzzi, G (2017) Regulatory meta-analyses for the evaluation of psychotropic medicines. The Lancet. Psychiatry 4, 660661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Button, KS, Ioannidis, JPA, Mokrysz, C, Nosek, BA, Flint, J, Robinson, ESJ and Munafo, MR (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Review of Neuroscience 14, 365376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, L-Y, Chen, CK, Chen, CH, Chang, HM, Huang, MC and Xu, K (2020) Association of craving and depressive symptoms in ketamine-dependent patients undergoing withdrawal treatment. American Journal of Addiction 29, 4350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cristea, IA and Naudet, F (2019) US Food and Drug Administration approval of esketamine and brexanolone. The Lancet. Psychiatry 6, 975–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, EJ, Trivedi, MH, Janik, A, Li, H, Zhang, Y, Li, X, Lane, R, Lim, P, Duca, AR, Hough, D, Thase, ME, Zajecka, J, Winokur, A, Divacka, I, Fagiolini, A, Cubala, WJ, Bitter, I, Blier, P, Shelton, RC, Molero, P, Manji, H, Drevets, WC and Singh, JB (2019) Efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus oral antidepressant treatment for relapse prevention in patients with treatment-resistant depression: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, e191189.Google ScholarPubMed
Duru, G and Fantino, B (2008) The clinical relevance of changes in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale using the minimum clinically important difference approach. Current Medical Research Opinion 24, 1329–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedgchin, M, Trivedi, M, Daly, EJ, Melkote, R, Lane, R, Lim, P, Vitagliano, D, Blier, P, Fava, M, Liebowitz, M, Ravindran, A, Gaillard, R, Ameele, HVD, Preskorn, S, Manji, H, Hough, D, Drevets, WC and Singh, JB (2019) 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). International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology pyz039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastaldon, C, Papola, D, Ostuzzi, G and Barbui, C (2020) Esketamine for treatment resistant depression: a trick of smoke and mirrors? Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 29, E79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leucht, S, Fennema, H, Engel, RR, Kaspers-Janssen, M, Lepping, P and Szegedi, A (2017) What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies. Journal of Affective Disorders 210, 287293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahase, E (2020) Esketamine for treatment resistant depression is not recommended by NICE. British Journal of Medicine 368, m329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maju, M, Daly, EJ, Popova, V, Heerlein, K, Canuso, C and Drevets, WC (2020). Comment to Drs. Gastaldon, Papola, Ostuzzi, and Barbui. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. In pressGoogle Scholar
Molero, P, Ramos-Quiroga, JA, Martin-Santos, R, Calvo-Sánchez, E, Gutiérrez-Rojas, L and Meana, JJ (2018) Antidepressant efficacy and tolerability of ketamine and esketamine: a critical review. CNS Drugs 32, 411420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moncrieff, J (2018) Research on a ‘drug-centred’ approach to psychiatric drug treatment: assessing the impact of mental and behavioural alterations produced by psychiatric drugs. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Science 27, 133140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2018) Depression in adults: recognition and management Clinical guideline [CG90]. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90 (Accessed July 2019).Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2020) Esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (ID1414) In development [GID-TA10371]. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ta10371 (Accessed February 2020).Google Scholar
Naudet, F and Cristea, IA (2020) Approval of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression – Authors' reply. The Lancet Psychiatry 7, 235236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ochs-Ross, R, Daly, EJ, Zhang, Y, Lane, R, Lim, P, Morrison, RL, Hough, D, Manji, H, Drevets, WC, Sanacora, G, Steffens, DC, Adler, C, McShane, R, Gaillard, R, Wilkinson, ST and Singh, JB (2020) Efficacy and safety of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant in elderly patients with treatment-resistant depression – TRANSFORM-3. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 28, 121141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popova, V, Daly, EJ, Trivedi, M, Cooper, K, Lane, R, Lim, P, Mazzucco, C, Hough, D, Thase, ME, Shelton, RC, Molero, P, Vieta, E, Bajbouj, M, Manji, H, Drevets, WC and Singh, JB (2019) Efficacy and safety of flexibly dosed esketamine nasal spray combined with a newly initiated oral antidepressant in treatment-resistant depression: a randomized double-blind active-controlled study. American Journal of Psychiatry 176, 428438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schatzberg, AF (2019) A word to the wise about intranasal esketamine. American Journal of Psychiatry 176, 422424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, EH (2019) Esketamine for treatment-resistant depression: seven concerns about efficacy and FDA approval. The Lancet Psychiatry 6, 977979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed