Comparability of blinded remote and site-based assessments of response to adjunctive esketamine or placebo nasal spray in patients with treatment resistant depression

Abstract Functional unblinding due to treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) may occur with any investigational drug and poses a challenge for double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. This pilot study compared site-based Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores to remote, site-independent scores by blinded raters. Audio-digital recordings of site-based MADRS interviews were obtained from a subset of patients during a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of esketamine nasal spray or placebo spray in treatment resistant depression (Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01998958 ). Fourteen of 67 patients (21%) in the ITT population were randomly selected from 3 clinical trial sites. The site-based MADRS interviews were recorded at the baseline and 2 h post-dose assessments on the first intranasal dosing day. Site-independent raters scored the recordings and were blinded to treatment and all reported TEAEs, including any transient dissociative/perceptual symptoms. None of the 7 placebo-assigned patients achieved a treatment response or remission at the 2-h post-dose assessment. Four of the 7 esketamine-assigned patients (57.1%) achieved a treatment response at 2-h post-dose, and 3 patients (42.9%) achieved remission. Three esketamine-treated patients experienced transient dissociative symptoms. The remote site-independent raters essentially replicated the site-based MADRS scores and yielded a 92.9% predictive value for matching treatment response and remission rates. This small pilot study affirms that blinded remote ratings (without the likelihood of functional unblinding) are comparable to site-based ratings of efficacy of esketamine nasal spray. The audio-digital recording method offers a reasonable strategy for other studies that may also be vulnerable to functional unblinding due to distinctive TEAEs.