Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Esketamine" in English language version.
A legitimate criticism, as it relates to interpreting the effect sizes reported with single or repeat-dose ketamine in TRD, is the possibility that nonspecific effects such as functional unblinding (e.g., by patients experiencing dissociation or euphoric responses) and expectancymayinadvertentlyinflate the efficacy of ketamine (51, 52). [...] Given the absence of an adequately designed head-to-head trial, the relative efficacies of intranasal esketamine and intravenous racemic ketamine are not known (65). [...] A recent meta-analysis comparing intranasal and intravenous ketamine formulations was unable to identify a significant difference between formulations as well as routes of delivery in efficacy at 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days (17). A separate meta-analysis concluded that intravenous ketamine may be superior in efficacy and have lower dropout rates (66). However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from these analyses given the heterogeneity across component studies.
In brief, these studies (Table 1) have globally assessed responses to a single dose of intravenous ketamine in 166 patients with TDR with multiple treatment failures, including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The findings provide evidence of improvement in depressive symptoms within hours, with a response rate > 60% in the first 4.5 and 24 h, and > 40% after 7 days, with a big effect size in comparison with placebo (Cohen's d 1.3–1.7) or active placebo (midazolam, d = 0.8). These figures, though preliminary, contrast with the average effect size of conventional antidepressants (Cohen's d 0.53–0.81 in patients with intense symptoms) [32] and their response latency (about 4–7 weeks) [1].
Some authors have described the discovery of rapid and robust antidepressant effects of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist ketamine as the most important advance in the field of psychiatry in the past half century.
Ketamine has been hailed as the most important advance in the treatment of depression of the past 50 years.1
The promising results seen in the small, single-infusion, single-center trials of racemic ketamine were generally not replicated in the larger, multi-site trials of esketamine nasal spray. The esketamine trials were also subject to FDA site inspections, data integrity checks, and other forms of independent scrutiny.
To date, only one study has examined the differences between esketamine (0.25 mg/kg) and (R,S)-ketamine (0.5 mg/kg); though underpowered, it found no differences in efficacy, tolerability, or psychotomimetic profile between the two agents [67]. A recent meta-analysis suggests the need to compare these two agents head-to-head [68].
Meeting, February 12, 2019. Agenda Topic: The committees will discuss the efficacy, safety, and risk-benefit profile of New Drug Application (NDA) 211243, esketamine 28 mg single-use nasal spray device, submitted by Janssen Pharmaceutica, for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression.
Pricing, though, may still be an issue. In early May, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) declined to recommend Spravato for use at its steep list price of $32,400 per year. The U.S. cost watchdog said J&J would need to cut the sticker price between 25% and 52% to be considered cost-effective.
Ketamine has been hailed as the most important advance in the treatment of depression of the past 50 years.1
A legitimate criticism, as it relates to interpreting the effect sizes reported with single or repeat-dose ketamine in TRD, is the possibility that nonspecific effects such as functional unblinding (e.g., by patients experiencing dissociation or euphoric responses) and expectancymayinadvertentlyinflate the efficacy of ketamine (51, 52). [...] Given the absence of an adequately designed head-to-head trial, the relative efficacies of intranasal esketamine and intravenous racemic ketamine are not known (65). [...] A recent meta-analysis comparing intranasal and intravenous ketamine formulations was unable to identify a significant difference between formulations as well as routes of delivery in efficacy at 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days (17). A separate meta-analysis concluded that intravenous ketamine may be superior in efficacy and have lower dropout rates (66). However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from these analyses given the heterogeneity across component studies.
Even drugs with novel mechanisms of action such as the esketamine nasal spray show the same effect size and look nearly identical to other antidepressants when evaluated in the regulatory context (42% symptom reduction with placebo, 54% with drug, effect size 0.29). However, it must be taken under consideration that this trial was unique from the others in that it was an adjunctive study of esketamine nasal spray in treatment resistant patients. It is worth noting that two shortterm trials conducted for regulatory approval of esketamine but not included in the label did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.058 and P = 0.088).28 Independent analysis of these esketamine trial data submitted to the FDA show that despite expectations from smallscale preliminary studies, esketamine performs modestly in patients with treatment resistant depression in the context of large, regulatory trials.29 These authors also raised concerns about the potential lack of specificity of drug effects and the risk of side effects demonstrated in these trials. [...] False negatives are well-known risks of small sized studies. However, it is equally important to note that if we do not enroll adequate sample sizes we will continue run the serious risk of getting an inflated false positive resulting in an overestimate of treatment effects that is not replicable (as was the case with many of the earlier regulatory trials, which tended to have small sample sizes).25 This is especially pertinent for early pilot studies of investigational antidepressants (phase I and II trials), which are not always subject to the same regulatory statutes of later stage trials. This phenomenon is illustrated by the dramatic decline of treatment effect sizes seen with esketamine over the course of development (from small pilot studies to large regulatory trials). Although regulatory agencies allow for more lenient methods for exploratory purposes, this method may yield misleading conclusions because these small trials are invariably under-powered. Specifically, these exploratory trials may end up with an erroneously low placebo response and thus a falsely inflated estimate of effect size.46 This possibility is under appreciated by many investigators but should be strongly considered given the persistence of modest effect sizes in regulatory trials of antidepressants.
In brief, these studies (Table 1) have globally assessed responses to a single dose of intravenous ketamine in 166 patients with TDR with multiple treatment failures, including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The findings provide evidence of improvement in depressive symptoms within hours, with a response rate > 60% in the first 4.5 and 24 h, and > 40% after 7 days, with a big effect size in comparison with placebo (Cohen's d 1.3–1.7) or active placebo (midazolam, d = 0.8). These figures, though preliminary, contrast with the average effect size of conventional antidepressants (Cohen's d 0.53–0.81 in patients with intense symptoms) [32] and their response latency (about 4–7 weeks) [1].
Some authors have described the discovery of rapid and robust antidepressant effects of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist ketamine as the most important advance in the field of psychiatry in the past half century.
Ketamine has been hailed as the most important advance in the treatment of depression of the past 50 years.1
The promising results seen in the small, single-infusion, single-center trials of racemic ketamine were generally not replicated in the larger, multi-site trials of esketamine nasal spray. The esketamine trials were also subject to FDA site inspections, data integrity checks, and other forms of independent scrutiny.
To date, only one study has examined the differences between esketamine (0.25 mg/kg) and (R,S)-ketamine (0.5 mg/kg); though underpowered, it found no differences in efficacy, tolerability, or psychotomimetic profile between the two agents [67]. A recent meta-analysis suggests the need to compare these two agents head-to-head [68].
A legitimate criticism, as it relates to interpreting the effect sizes reported with single or repeat-dose ketamine in TRD, is the possibility that nonspecific effects such as functional unblinding (e.g., by patients experiencing dissociation or euphoric responses) and expectancymayinadvertentlyinflate the efficacy of ketamine (51, 52). [...] Given the absence of an adequately designed head-to-head trial, the relative efficacies of intranasal esketamine and intravenous racemic ketamine are not known (65). [...] A recent meta-analysis comparing intranasal and intravenous ketamine formulations was unable to identify a significant difference between formulations as well as routes of delivery in efficacy at 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days (17). A separate meta-analysis concluded that intravenous ketamine may be superior in efficacy and have lower dropout rates (66). However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from these analyses given the heterogeneity across component studies.
Even drugs with novel mechanisms of action such as the esketamine nasal spray show the same effect size and look nearly identical to other antidepressants when evaluated in the regulatory context (42% symptom reduction with placebo, 54% with drug, effect size 0.29). However, it must be taken under consideration that this trial was unique from the others in that it was an adjunctive study of esketamine nasal spray in treatment resistant patients. It is worth noting that two shortterm trials conducted for regulatory approval of esketamine but not included in the label did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.058 and P = 0.088).28 Independent analysis of these esketamine trial data submitted to the FDA show that despite expectations from smallscale preliminary studies, esketamine performs modestly in patients with treatment resistant depression in the context of large, regulatory trials.29 These authors also raised concerns about the potential lack of specificity of drug effects and the risk of side effects demonstrated in these trials. [...] False negatives are well-known risks of small sized studies. However, it is equally important to note that if we do not enroll adequate sample sizes we will continue run the serious risk of getting an inflated false positive resulting in an overestimate of treatment effects that is not replicable (as was the case with many of the earlier regulatory trials, which tended to have small sample sizes).25 This is especially pertinent for early pilot studies of investigational antidepressants (phase I and II trials), which are not always subject to the same regulatory statutes of later stage trials. This phenomenon is illustrated by the dramatic decline of treatment effect sizes seen with esketamine over the course of development (from small pilot studies to large regulatory trials). Although regulatory agencies allow for more lenient methods for exploratory purposes, this method may yield misleading conclusions because these small trials are invariably under-powered. Specifically, these exploratory trials may end up with an erroneously low placebo response and thus a falsely inflated estimate of effect size.46 This possibility is under appreciated by many investigators but should be strongly considered given the persistence of modest effect sizes in regulatory trials of antidepressants.
Some authors have described the discovery of rapid and robust antidepressant effects of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist ketamine as the most important advance in the field of psychiatry in the past half century.
The promising results seen in the small, single-infusion, single-center trials of racemic ketamine were generally not replicated in the larger, multi-site trials of esketamine nasal spray. The esketamine trials were also subject to FDA site inspections, data integrity checks, and other forms of independent scrutiny.
To date, only one study has examined the differences between esketamine (0.25 mg/kg) and (R,S)-ketamine (0.5 mg/kg); though underpowered, it found no differences in efficacy, tolerability, or psychotomimetic profile between the two agents [67]. A recent meta-analysis suggests the need to compare these two agents head-to-head [68].
A legitimate criticism, as it relates to interpreting the effect sizes reported with single or repeat-dose ketamine in TRD, is the possibility that nonspecific effects such as functional unblinding (e.g., by patients experiencing dissociation or euphoric responses) and expectancymayinadvertentlyinflate the efficacy of ketamine (51, 52). [...] Given the absence of an adequately designed head-to-head trial, the relative efficacies of intranasal esketamine and intravenous racemic ketamine are not known (65). [...] A recent meta-analysis comparing intranasal and intravenous ketamine formulations was unable to identify a significant difference between formulations as well as routes of delivery in efficacy at 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days (17). A separate meta-analysis concluded that intravenous ketamine may be superior in efficacy and have lower dropout rates (66). However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from these analyses given the heterogeneity across component studies.
In brief, these studies (Table 1) have globally assessed responses to a single dose of intravenous ketamine in 166 patients with TDR with multiple treatment failures, including electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The findings provide evidence of improvement in depressive symptoms within hours, with a response rate > 60% in the first 4.5 and 24 h, and > 40% after 7 days, with a big effect size in comparison with placebo (Cohen's d 1.3–1.7) or active placebo (midazolam, d = 0.8). These figures, though preliminary, contrast with the average effect size of conventional antidepressants (Cohen's d 0.53–0.81 in patients with intense symptoms) [32] and their response latency (about 4–7 weeks) [1].
Ketamine has been hailed as the most important advance in the treatment of depression of the past 50 years.1
The promising results seen in the small, single-infusion, single-center trials of racemic ketamine were generally not replicated in the larger, multi-site trials of esketamine nasal spray. The esketamine trials were also subject to FDA site inspections, data integrity checks, and other forms of independent scrutiny.
Meeting, February 12, 2019. Agenda Topic: The committees will discuss the efficacy, safety, and risk-benefit profile of New Drug Application (NDA) 211243, esketamine 28 mg single-use nasal spray device, submitted by Janssen Pharmaceutica, for the treatment of treatment-resistant depression.
Pricing, though, may still be an issue. In early May, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) declined to recommend Spravato for use at its steep list price of $32,400 per year. The U.S. cost watchdog said J&J would need to cut the sticker price between 25% and 52% to be considered cost-effective.
