MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393379364 · doi:10.1017/s1092852924000105

Effects of esketamine nasal spray on depressive symptom severity in adults with treatment-resistant depression and associations between the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire

2024· article· en· W4393379364 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jennifer Kern Sliwa, Ronaldo R. Naranjo, Ibrahim Turkoz, Mary Pat Petrillo, Patricia Cabrera, Madhukar H. Trivedi

Bibliographic record

VenueCNS Spectrums · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOtsuka PharmaceuticalUniversity of OxfordBiogenSage TherapeuticsOtsuka Canada PharmaceuticalJanssen Scientific AffairsNeurocrine BiosciencesTakeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Patient Health QuestionnaireRating scaleInternal medicineMajor depressive disorderPlaceboDepressive symptomsPhysical therapyPsychiatryPsychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 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. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02417064, NCT02418585, NCT02493868.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNS SpectrumsSame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207