Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD) poses a substantial health and economic challenge, persisting as a major concern despite decades of extensive research into novel treatment modalities. The considerable heterogeneity in TRD\'s clinical manifestations and neurobiological bases has complicated efforts toward effective interventions. Recognizing the need for precise biomarkers to guide treatment choices in TRD, herein we introduce the SelecTool Project. This initiative focuses on developing (WorkPlane 1/WP1) and conducting preliminary validation (WorkPlane 2/WP2) of a computational tool (SelecTool) that integrates clinical data, neurophysiological (EEG) and peripheral (blood sample) biomarkers through a machine-learning framework designed to optimize TRD treatment protocols. The SelecTool project aims to enhance clinical decision-making by enabling the selection of personalized interventions. It leverages multi-modal data analysis to navigate treatment choices towards two validated therapeutic options for TRD: esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS) and accelerated repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (arTMS). In WP1, 100 subjects with TRD will be randomized to receive either ESK-NS or arTMS, with comprehensive evaluations encompassing neurophysiological (EEG), clinical (psychometric scales), and peripheral (blood samples) assessments both at baseline (T0) and one month post-treatment initiation (T1). WP2 will utilize the data collected in WP1 to train the SelecTool algorithm, followed by its application in a second, out-of-sample cohort of 20 TRD subjects, assigning treatments based on the tool\'s recommendations. Ultimately, this research seeks to revolutionize the treatment of TRD by employing advanced machine learning strategies and thorough data analysis, aimed at unraveling the complex neurobiological landscape of depression. This effort is expected to provide pivotal insights that will promote the development of more effective and individually tailored treatment strategies, thus addressing a significant void in current TRD management and potentially reducing its profound societal and economic burdens.

Esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS) is a new drug for treatment-resistant depression, and we aimed to detect and characterize the adverse events (AEs) of ESK-NS using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database between 2019 Q1 and 2023 Q4. Reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) were performed to detect risk signals from the FAERS data to identify potential ESK-NS-AEs associations. A total of 14,606 reports on AEs with ESK-NS as the primary suspected drug were analyzed. A total of 518 preferred terms signals and 25 system organ classes mainly concentrated in psychiatric disorders (33.20%), nervous system disorders (16.67%), general disorders and administration site conditions (14.21%), and others were obtained. Notably, dissociation (n = 1,093, ROR 2,257.80, PRR 899.64, EBGM 876.86) exhibited highest occurrence rates and signal intensity. Moreover, uncommon but significantly strong AEs signals, such as hand-eye coordination impaired, feeling guilty, and feelings of worthlessness, were observed. Additionally, dissociative disorder (n = 57, ROR 510.92, PRR 506.70, EBGM 386.60) and sedation (n = 688, ROR 172.68, PRR 155.53, and EBGM 142.05) both presented strong AE signals, and the former is not recorded in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). In clinical applications, close attention should be paid to the psychiatric disorders and nervous system disorders, especially dissociation. Meanwhile, clinical professionals should be alert for the occurrence of AEs signals not mentioned in the SmPC and take preventive measures to ensure the safety of clinical use.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus newly initiated oral antidepressant (OAD) versus OAD plus placebo nasal spray (PBO) on the association between Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores in adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).
METHODS: Data from TRANSFORM-1 and TRANSFORM-2 (two similarly designed, randomized, active-controlled TRD studies) and SUSTAIN-1 (relapse prevention study) were analyzed. Group differences for mean changes in PHQ-9 total score from baseline were compared using analysis of covariance. Associations between MADRS and PHQ-9 total scores from TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 were assessed using simple parametric, nonparametric, and multiple regression models.
RESULTS: In TRANSFORM-1/TRANSFORM-2 (ESK + OAD, n = 343; OAD + PBO, n = 222), baseline PHQ-9 mean scores were 20.4 for ESK + OAD and 20.6 for OAD + PBO (severe depression). At day 28, significant group differences were observed in least squares mean change (SE) in PHQ-9 scores from baseline (-12.8 [0.46] vs -10.3 [0.53], P < .001) and in clinically substantial change in PHQ-9 scores (≥6 points; 77.1% vs 64%, P < .001) in ESK + OAD and OAD + PBO groups, respectively. A nonlinear relationship between MADRS and PHQ-9 was observed; total scores demonstrated increased correlation over time. In SUSTAIN-1, 57.3% of patients receiving ESK + OAD (n = 89) versus 44.2% receiving OAD + PBO (n = 86) retained remission status (PHQ-9 score ≤4) at maintenance treatment end point (P = .044).
CONCLUSIONS: In adults with TRD, ESK + OAD significantly improved severity of depressive symptoms, and more patients achieved clinically meaningful changes in depressive symptoms based on PHQ-9, versus OAD + PBO. PHQ-9 outcomes were consistent with those of clinician-rated MADRS.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02417064, NCT02418585, NCT02493868.

UNASSIGNED: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and frequent affection that is highly comorbid to major depressive disorder. Comorbid PTSD and depression are usually treatment-resistant, with a high risk of functional impairment and suicide. Esketamine nasal spray is a recent validated treatment for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but its efficacy on comorbid TRD-PTSD remains insufficiently documented. In particular, flashbacks can occur during esketamine administration and their influence on clinical outcomes is unknown.
UNASSIGNED: Our main objective was to describe esketamine-induced traumatic flashbacks and their impact on clinical trajectories within a sample of patients with comorbid TRD-PTSD.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients receiving esketamine nasal spray for TRD with comorbid PTSD who experienced at least one flashback of their trauma during esketamine sessions across 11 psychiatric departments.
UNASSIGNED: Between February 2020 and March 2023, 22 adult patients with TRD met inclusion criteria. In sixteen patients (72.7%) flashbacks disappeared as the sessions progressed. In six patients (27.3%), esketamine treatment was stopped because of persistent flashbacks. When esketamine was continued, clinical response was observed both for depression and PTSD (depression response rate: 45.5% and remission rate: 22.7%; PTSD response rate: 45.5% and remission: 18.2%).
UNASSIGNED: The retrospective design of the study and the absence of a comparator group are the main limitations of our study.
UNASSIGNED: Our results suggest that the occurrence of esketamine-induced traumatic flashbacks does not hinder clinical response. On the contrary, when managed appropriately and combined with targeted psychotherapy, it could even contribute to positive outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: This meta-analysis assessed whether atypical antipsychotics (AAPs) and esketamine nasal spray (ESK-NS), which are mechanistically distinct, differ in antidepressant outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Data were extracted from 12 trials of ESK-NS or AAPs in depressed patients (4276) with inadequate response or resistance to conventional antidepressants. Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score reductions from baseline and response rates (≥50% reduction) were analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: At endpoint, the estimated MADRS score reduction of pooled ESK-NS arms was greater than pooled AAP arms (+9.16 points, p < 0.0001). The reduction also was greater in the pooled control arms of the ESK-NS trials than the pooled control arms of the AAP trials (+7.57 points, p < 0.0001). The mean difference in the reductions between pooled ESK-NS and control arms was 1.87 points greater than that between pooled AAP and control arms, but this difference was not significant (95% CI: -4.49, 0.74, p = 0.16). Relative to their respective control arms, the mean difference in response rates was 25% for the pooled ESK-NS and 9% for the pooled AAP arms; the mean response rate was 16% greater in the pooled ESK-NS studies than the pooled AAP studies (p = 0.0004). Comparisons against specific AAPs showed mean differences in the MADRS score reductions at 1 week between the experimental and control arms that were numerically larger in the ESK-NS trials than in the aripiprazole trials (mean difference of 1.71 points, p = 0.06) and the brexpiprazole trials (mean difference of 2.05 points, p = 0.02).
UNASSIGNED: The ESK-NS arms showed numerically larger MADRS score reductions at week-1 and endpoint, and a significantly larger response rate compared with AAP arms. Prospective studies involving direct comparisons are warranted to compare the relative efficacy between these treatment regimens.

UNASSIGNED: Treatment resistant depression (TRD) affects 10-30% of patients with major depressive disorder. In 4-week trials, esketamine nasal spray (NS) was efficacious vs. placebo when both were initiated in addition to a new selective serotonin or serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. However, comparison with an extended range of real-world treatments (RWT) is lacking.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison using propensity score-based inverse probability weighting, performed on 6-month response and remission data from patients receiving esketamine NS plus oral antidepressant from the SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov) study, compared with patients receiving other RWT from the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov) study. SUSTAIN-2 was a long-term open-label study of esketamine NS, while the EOTC was conducted at a time when esketamine NS was not available as RWT. Threshold and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how robust the primary analyses were.
UNASSIGNED: Patients receiving esketamine NS had a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) vs. patients receiving RWT (26.4% [95% CI 21.5-31.4] and 18.2% [95% CI 13.9-22.5], respectively), according to rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Resulting adjusted odds ratios (OR) and relative risk (RR) favoured esketamine NS over RWT for 6-month response (OR 2.756 [95% CI 2.034-3.733], p < 0.0001; RR 1.882 [95% CI 1.534-2.310], p < 0.0001) and remission (OR 2.276 [95% CI 1.621-3.196], p < 0.0001; RR 1.847 [95% CI 1.418-2.406], p < 0.0001). Threshold analyses suggested that differences between the two studies were robust, and results were consistent across extensive sensitivity analyses.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG supports that, at 6 months, esketamine NS has a substantial and significant benefit over RWT for patients with TRD. While results may be affected by unobserved confounding factors, threshold analyses suggested these were unlikely to impact the study conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.

UNASSIGNED: The efficacy of esketamine nasal spray (NS) as a rapid-acting agent for treatment resistant depression (TRD) was demonstrated in comparisons with placebo, when both were given in addition to a newly initiated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). How esketamine NS compares with commonly used real-world (RW) polypharmacy treatment strategies is not known.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison that analysed data from SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov), a long-term, open-label study of esketamine NS plus SSRI/SNRI, and the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov), an observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were compared between patients receiving esketamine NS (SUSTAIN-2) and those from the EOTC treated with polypharmacy treatment strategies, either combination or augmentation. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, using rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Threshold analyses were conducted to assess potential impact of unmeasured confounders on the robustness of analyses where esketamine NS was found to be significantly superior. Sensitivity analyses were used to understand the impact of analysis method selection and data handling.
UNASSIGNED: Esketamine NS treatment resulted in a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) versus RW polypharmacy (26.8% [95% CI 21.0-32.5] and 19.4%, [95% CI 14.2-24.6], respectively). Relative risk calculations showed esketamine NS was 1.859 (95% CI 1.474-2.345; p < 0.0001) times as likely to result in response and 1.735 (1.297-2.322; p = 0.0002) times as likely to result in remission versus RW polypharmacy at 6 months. Threshold and extensive sensitivity analyses supported that analyses of esketamine NS superiority were robust.
UNASSIGNED: ICEBERG supports esketamine NS being superior to current RW individualized polypharmacy strategies, including augmentation, with benefits extending beyond acute use, to improved chance of 6-month response and remission. While unobserved confounding factors may certainly impact results of an indirect comparison, threshold analysis supported a low likelihood of this affecting the conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.

Esketamine (ESK) nasal spray, taken with oral antidepressant therapy, is approved for the treatment of depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) with acute suicidal ideation or behavior. In pooled analyses of two pivotal phase 3 studies, ASPIRE I and II, remission rates were consistently higher among patients with MDD with active suicidality who were treated with ESK + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo (PBO) + SOC at all time points in the double-blind and most time points in the follow-up phases. The current analysis of the ASPIRE data sets assessed the effect of ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC on additional remission-related endpoints: time to achieving remission and consistent remission, proportion of patients in remission and consistent remission, and days in remission.
Post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and II (N = 451). Remission and consistent remission were defined as Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤ 12 at any given visit or two consecutive visits, respectively. Combined endpoints utilizing Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Suicidality-revised version [CGI-SS-r] ≤ 1 (i.e., not suicidal/questionably suicidal) along with the remission and consistent remission definitions (i.e., MADRS total score ≤ 12) were also examined.
The median times to remission and consistent remission of MDD were significantly shorter in ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC (15 versus 23 [p = 0.005] and 23 versus 50 days [p = 0.007], respectively) and a greater proportion of patients in ESK + SOC achieved remission and consistent remission by Day 25 (65.2% versus 55.5% and 54.2% versus 39.8%, respectively). Similar results were obtained using the combined endpoint for both remission definitions. The median percent of days in remission during the double-blind treatment phase was significantly greater in ESK + SOC (27.1% or 5 days) versus PBO + SOC (8.3% or 2 days; p = 0.006), and the significant difference was maintained during follow-up.
Treatment with ESK + SOC versus PBO + SOC resulted in significantly shorter time to remission, greater proportion of patients in remission, and greater percent of days in remission using increasingly rigorous definitions of remission. These findings underscore the clinical benefits of ESK for adults with MDD with suicidality.
ClinicalTrials.gov registry NCT03039192 (registered February 1, 2017) and NCT03097133 (registered March 31, 2017).

This study aimed to characterize patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) initiating esketamine or conventional therapies.
Adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) were selected from the IBM MarketScan Databases. A claims-based algorithm identified patients with evidence of TRD, defined as initiation of a new antidepressant therapy after 2 different antidepressant trials of adequate dose and duration during the most recent major depressive episode. Patients receiving treatment on/after March 5, 2019 (esketamine approval date for TRD), were classified to the esketamine cohort if they newly initiated esketamine (index date) or to the TRD conventional therapies cohorts if they newly initiated electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), or pharmacologic therapies (index date was the therapy initiation date, prioritizing ECT, then TMS, then pharmacologic antidepressant therapies). Patient characteristics in the 6 months before therapy initiation were described.
The esketamine cohort included 246 patients (mean age, 46.5 years; 63.0% female), and the TRD conventional therapies cohorts included 104,164 patients (mean age, 46.9 years; 74.8% female; 0.4% initiated ECT, 1.2% initiated TMS). During the 6 months preindex, in the esketamine and TRD conventional therapies cohorts, 77.6% and 41.4% received psychotherapy and 82.9% and 34.2% had a psychiatrist visit, respectively. Most patients had outpatient care for MDD in the esketamine (91.9%) and TRD conventional therapies (63.6%) cohorts; 57.3% and 21.0% received care at specialized mental health care settings. MDD was classified as \"severe\" among 81.3% and 35.1% of patients in the esketamine and TRD conventional therapies cohorts . Preindex mental health-related (MHR) inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were identified in 12.2% and 16.3% of the esketamine cohort and in 8.2% and 10.3% of the TRD conventional therapies cohort. Before therapy initiation, 34.6% and 17.6% of the esketamine and TRD conventional therapies cohorts received ≥3 unique antidepressants. Suicidal ideation or behavior was observed in 8.5% and 3.6% of the esketamine and TRD conventional therapies cohorts pretherapy initiation. Mean monthly all-cause health care costs in the esketamine cohort were $2532 (58.2% MHR); in the TRD conventional therapies cohorts, costs were $1873 (32.4% MHR).
Among patients with TRD, those initiating esketamine relative to conventional therapies displayed higher MDD severity, used more MHR inpatient/emergency department services and antidepressant treatments, and incurred higher health care costs 6 months pretherapy initiation. These findings suggest potential benefits of identifying and treating patients with TRD earlier with more effective treatments and should inform payers in consideration of esketamine coverage.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the likelihood of attaining response/remission of depressive symptoms with esketamine nasal spray (ESK) plus standard of care (SoC) vs placebo nasal spray (PBO) plus SoC at 4 weeks in patients with major depressive disorder and active suicidal ideation with intent (MDSI) without early response.
METHODS: A post hoc analysis of pooled data from ASPIRE I and ASPIRE II evaluated ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC in adults with MDSI without response (≥50% improvement from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score) at 24 hours after the first dose or at week 1 after the first two doses (ie, 24-hour and week 1 nonresponders). Response and remission (MADRS score ≤ 12) rates were assessed on day 25.
RESULTS: The analysis included 362 patients (n = 182, ESK plus SoC; n = 180, PBO plus SoC). Among 24-hour nonresponders, more patients receiving ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC achieved response (63.9% vs 48.0%, P = .010) and remission (35.1% vs 24.4%, P = .074) at day 25. Odds of response/remission were higher with ESK plus SoC vs PBO plus SoC (response: 1.89, 95% CI, 1.17-3.05; remission: 1.48, 95% CI, 0.93-2.35). Similar findings were observed among week 1 nonresponders for response (48.4% vs 34.5%, P = .075), remission (25.0% vs 13.1%, P = .060), and odds of response/remission (response: 2.03, 95% CI, 1.22-3.40; remission: 1.63, 95% CI, 1.01-2.62).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MDSI not responding within the first week of treatment with ESK plus SoC may still benefit from a full 4-week treatment course.