ICEBERG study: an indirect adjusted comparison estimating the long-term benefit of esketamine nasal spray when compared with routine treatment of treatment resistant depression in general psychiatry

BackgroundTreatment 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.MethodsICEBERG 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.ResultsPatients 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.ConclusionICEBERG 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

Indirect adjusted comparison of 6-month clinical outcomes between esketamine nasal spray and other real-world polypharmacy treatment strategies for treatment resistant depression: results from the ICEBERG study

BackgroundThe 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.MethodICEBERG 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.ResultsEsketamine 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.ConclusionICEBERG 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

Adjusted Comparison of Outcomes between Patients from CARTITUDE-1 versus Multiple Myeloma Patients with Prior Exposure to PI, Imid and Anti-CD-38 from a German Registry

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy with the potential for long-term disease control in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). As cilta-cel was assessed in the single-arm CARTITUDE-1 clinical trial, we used an external cohort of patients from the Therapie Monitor registry fulfilling the CARTITUDE-1 inclusion criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of cilta-cel for overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) vs. real-world clinical practice. Individual patient data allowed us to adjust the comparisons between both cohorts, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW; average treatment effect in the treated population (ATT) and overlap population (ATO) weights) and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Outcomes were compared in intention-to-treat (HR, IPW-ATT: TTNT: 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.24); OS: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.25); IPW-ATO: TTNT: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.49); OS: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.54)) and modified intention-to-treat (HR, IPW-ATT: TTNT: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.67); OS: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.84); IPW-ATO: TTNT: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.59); OS: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.79)) populations. All the comparisons were statistically significant in favor of cilta-cel. These results highlight cilta-cel’s potential as a novel, effective treatment to address unmet needs in patients with RRMM

Detecting correlation changes in multivariate time series: A comparison of four non-parametric change point detection methods

Abstract Change point detection in multivariate time series is a complex task since next to the mean, the correlation structure of the monitored variables may also alter when change occurs. DeCon was recently developed to detect such changes in mean and\or correlation by combining a moving windows approach and robust PCA. However, in the literature, several other methods have been proposed that employ other non-parametric tools: E-divisive, Multirank, and KCP. Since these methods use different statistical approaches, two issues need to be tackled. First, applied researchers may find it hard to appraise the differences between the methods. Second, a direct comparison of the relative performance of all these methods for capturing change points signaling correlation changes is still lacking. Therefore, we present the basic principles behind DeCon, E-divisive, Multirank, and KCP and the corresponding algorithms, to make them more accessible to readers. We further compared their performance through extensive simulations using the settings of Bulteel et al. (Biological Psychology, 98 (1), 29-42, 2014) implying changes in mean and in correlation structure and those of Matteson and James (Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109 (505), 334-345, 2014) implying different numbers of (noise) variables. KCP emerged as the best method in almost all settings. However, in case of more than two noise variables, only DeCon performed adequately in detecting correlation changes

The occurrence and correlates of emotional interdependence in romantic relationships

Interdependence, including emotional interdependence, is widely considered to be a cornerstone of close relationships. Through frequent interactions, romantic partners are thought to continuously exchange, influence, and respond to one another’s emotions, leading their feelings to become closely aligned over time. Although prior research has shown that such emotional interdependence can arise in couples, no research to date has comprehensively investigated its occurrence, degree, consistency and correlates. Across three different studies, we examined whether and to what extent couples indeed show interpersonal emotional connections (compared to pseudo-couples). Additionally, we investigated its consistency and moderating factors, by examining emotional interdependence across different types of emotions (negative vs. positive vs. emotional extremity), timescales (second-to-second vs. daily life), and situational contexts (supportive vs. conflictual), and by inspecting associations with indicators of relationship closeness (relationship longevity, cohabitation status, commitment, and closeness in terms of including the other in the self). The findings show limited evidence for emotional interdependence. The overall mean level of interdependence was significantly larger than that of randomly composed couples, but only a minority of the couples demonstrated emotional interdependence to a greater extent than these pseudo-couples. Moreover, the degree to which couples exhibited emotional interdependence showed little consistency across timescales and contexts, and was not clearly associated with relationship closeness. We discuss potential implications for the field of interpersonal emotion dynamics.status: Published onlin

Adjusted Comparison of Outcomes between Patients from CARTITUDE-1 versus Multiple Myeloma Patients with Prior Exposure to PI, Imid and Anti-CD-38 from a German Registry

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy with the potential for long-term disease control in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). As cilta-cel was assessed in the single-arm CARTITUDE-1 clinical trial, we used an external cohort of patients from the Therapie Monitor registry fulfilling the CARTITUDE-1 inclusion criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of cilta-cel for overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) vs. real-world clinical practice. Individual patient data allowed us to adjust the comparisons between both cohorts, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW; average treatment effect in the treated population (ATT) and overlap population (ATO) weights) and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Outcomes were compared in intention-to-treat (HR, IPW-ATT: TTNT: 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.24); OS: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.25); IPW-ATO: TTNT: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.49); OS: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.54)) and modified intention-to-treat (HR, IPW-ATT: TTNT: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.67); OS: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.84); IPW-ATO: TTNT: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.59); OS: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.79)) populations. All the comparisons were statistically significant in favor of cilta-cel. These results highlight cilta-cel’s potential as a novel, effective treatment to address unmet needs in patients with RRMM

Adjusted Comparison of Outcomes between Patients from CARTITUDE-1 versus Multiple Myeloma Patients with Prior Exposure to PI, Imid and Anti-CD-38 from a German Registry

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy with the potential for long-term disease control in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). As cilta-cel was assessed in the single-arm CARTITUDE-1 clinical trial, we used an external cohort of patients from the Therapie Monitor registry fulfilling the CARTITUDE-1 inclusion criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of cilta-cel for overall survival (OS) and time to next treatment (TTNT) vs. real-world clinical practice. Individual patient data allowed us to adjust the comparisons between both cohorts, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW; average treatment effect in the treated population (ATT) and overlap population (ATO) weights) and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Outcomes were compared in intention-to-treat (HR, IPW-ATT: TTNT: 0.13 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.24); OS: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.25); IPW-ATO: TTNT: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.49); OS: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.54)) and modified intention-to-treat (HR, IPW-ATT: TTNT: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.67); OS: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.84); IPW-ATO: TTNT: 0.26 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.59); OS: 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12, 0.79)) populations. All the comparisons were statistically significant in favor of cilta-cel. These results highlight cilta-cel’s potential as a novel, effective treatment to address unmet needs in patients with RRMM