Safety and tolerability of esketamine nasal spray versus quetiapine extended release in patients with treatment resistant depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In ESCAPE-TRD (NCT04338321), esketamine nasal spray (NS) significantly increased the probability of remission at Week 8, and of being relapse-free through Week 32 after remission at Week 8, versus quetiapine extended release (XR) in patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD). Here, we explore the time course, burden and consequences of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the phase IIIb ESCAPE‑TRD trial. Patients with TRD were randomised 1:1 to esketamine NS or quetiapine XR, dosed per label alongside an ongoing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. In this secondary publication, safety analyses (comprising patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment) included incidence, severity and durations (Kaplan‑Meier method) of TEAEs, and subsequent dispositional changes. P values were not adjusted for multiple testing. 336 patients were randomised to esketamine NS and 340 to quetiapine XR; 334 and 336 received ≥1 dose of study treatment, respectively. TEAEs were significantly more common with esketamine NS than quetiapine XR (91.9 % versus 78.0 %; p < 0.001), but were typically mild/moderate and transient in nature: a greater proportion resolved on the same-day (92.0 % versus 12.1 %) and lead to treatment discontinuation in significantly fewer patients (4.2 % versus 11.0 %, respectively; p < 0.001). The proportion of days spent with TEAEs was significantly lower with esketamine NS than quetiapine XR (median: 11.9 % versus 21.3 %; p < 0.001). Although more frequent with esketamine NS, TEAEs were typically transient and mild, with discontinuation less likely versus quetiapine XR. Data were consistent with established safety profiles, with no new safety signals identified. Alongside greater efficacy, the demonstrably more favourable tolerability profile of esketamine NS versus quetiapine XR further supports its use for TRD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".