Search

At the heart of this matter is the eye-popping and contentious difference in the results of 2 teams analyzing ostensibly the same data set, with one team reporting an estimated [...]

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., (© Copyright 2024 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)

Currently, there are few pharmacotherapy options for clinicians treating post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and antidepressants are usually the medication of choice. This meta-analysis aimed to review the efficacy of antidepressants in the acute treatment of PTSD in adults while investigating the contribution of study design and placebo response to the findings of these studies. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that compared antidepressants with placebo for acute treatment of PTSD were selected. Standardized mean difference (SMD) in change in Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale scores were pooled after examining for heterogeneity. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Twenty-nine antidepressant-placebo comparisons, involving 4575 subjects, were analyzed. The SMD among all studies was 0.25, a small to medium effect size, lower than that in studies of antidepressants in adult major depressive disorder. The SMDs for low and high mean placebo responses, were 0.27 and 0.22, respectively. The overall SMD for paroxetine studies was in the moderate range (0.43) and that for sertraline studies was in the small range (0.12). Our findings suggest that antidepressants have modest efficacy in alleviating PTSD symptoms. Patient-level meta-analyses are required to further explore the potential clinical relevance of sertraline for PTSD., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The relationship between the duration of major depressive disorder (MDD) and therapeutic response to standard antidepressant treatment (SAT) is unknown. N -methyl-D-aspartate receptor uncompetitive antagonists are emerging drugs for MDD. We investigated whether the antidepressant effect of esmethadone (REL-1017) could be related to the duration of depression., Methods: We analyzed data from a Phase 2a study of adjunctive treatment with esmethadone in MDD patients ( DSM-5 ) with inadequate response to ongoing SAT (May 2018-August 2019). Patients were randomized to treatment with esmethadone 25 mg, esmethadone 50 mg, or placebo for 7 days, followed by an observation period (Days 7-14). Duration of depression was derived from 2 measures: (1) time from onset (TFO), calculated as the difference in years between age at trial enrollment and age at the onset of the first major depressive episode (MDE), and (2) TFO index, calculated by computing the years of illness duration (number of years from the beginning of MDD), divided by age and multiplied by 100. First, bivariate correlations between TFO and change from baseline (CFB) were calculated by Spearman ρ. Linear mixed-model analyses were also conducted., Results: A total of 62 patients participated in the trial. The median values of time from MDD onset for the 62 patients were 11 years (absolute value) and 22% (percentage of life-years). Duration of depression was significantly correlated with Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) CFB on Day 14, even when controlling for the effect of current depression severity (MADRS baseline). In the linear mixed-model analyses, we found a significant effect of duration on reduction in MADRS score from T0 to subsequent assessments ( P < .05). Number of previous MDEs and effect of esmethadone 50 mg when compared to 25 mg were not significant., Conclusion: Esmethadone 25 and 50 mg were more effective in reducing MADRS scores in patients with shorter time from first MDE onset., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03051256., (© Copyright 2024 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.)