SUMMARY

• SPRAVATO is not specifically indicated, nor was it studied, for the treatment of anhedonia. Anhedonia is a symptom of depression and was measured as part of the Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The primary trials for SPRAVATO assessed the total scores for these measures.^1-4 
• Post hoc analyses of short-term, phase 3 trials in treatment-resistant depression (TRD; TRANSFORM-2¹) and major depressive disorder with active suicidal ideation and behavior (ASPIRE-1³ and ASPIRE-2⁴) assessed individual items of the MADRS and PHQ-9 and found greater improvement in symptoms, including those associated with anhedonia, in patients treated with SPRAVATO+oral antidepressant (AD) compared to placebo+oral AD/standard-of-care (SOC). These post hoc analyses were not adjusted for multiplicity; therefore, any statistical significance was nominal.^5-7 
• A real-world study reported significant improvements in depression symptoms following 3 months of treatment with SPRAVATO in patients with TRD. Additionally, positive correlations were reported between clinician-rated and patient-rated assessments of core symptoms, including anhedonia.⁸

Clinical Data

Post Hoc Analyses of Studies in Treatment-Resistant Depression

Borentain et al (2022)⁵ conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the TRANSFORM-1 and -2 studies,^1,2 which were short-term, phase 3 trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of SPRAVATO+oral AD vs placebo+oral AD in adult patients with TRD. The study used exploratory (TRANSFORM-2) and confirmatory factor (TRANSFORM-1) analyses to identify statistically and clinically significant clusters of depressive symptoms in the MADRS items and to evaluate the impact of SPRAVATO+oral AD vs placebo+oral AD on the trajectories of the clusters identified. MADRS assessments were conducted at baseline and on days 2, 8, 15, 22, and 28. Analyses were not corrected for multiple comparisons.

Results

• The analysis included 223 patients from TRANSFORM-2 and 342 from TRANSFORM-1. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups in each study and between the studies.
• The exploratory factor analysis for TRANSFORM-2 identified the following clusters (Factors) from the 10-item MADRS scale:
  • Factor 1 (affective and anhedonic symptoms) represented 22.4% of the scale variance and included “apparent sadness”, “reported sadness”, “lassitude”, and “inability to feel”.
  • Factor 2 (anxiety and vegetative symptoms) represented 18% of the scale variance and included “inner tension”, “reduced sleep”, “reduced appetite”, and “concentration difficulties”.
  • Factor 3 (hopelessness) included “pessimistic thoughts” and “suicidal thoughts”.
  • The inter-factor correlation between Factors 1 and 2 was 0.37; Factors 1 and 3, 0.24; and Factors 2 and 3, 0.07.
• Confirmatory factor analysis using TRANSFORM-1 suggested that the 3-factor structure identified above was an acceptable model fit.
• In TRANSFORM-2, improvements in MADRS scores were observed for all 3 factors at all timepoints in both treatment groups, with greater improvements in the SPRAVATO+oral AD group compared to that of the placebo+oral AD group.
  • Significant treatment effects were observed in the SPRAVATO+oral AD group for:
    • Factor 1, on days 2, 22, and 28
    • Factor 2, at all timepoints (nominal P<0.05)
    • Factor 3, on day 2
  • At day 28, the effect sizes for the SPRAVATO+oral AD group compared to the placebo+oral AD group were 0.29 for Factor 1, 0.35 for Factor 2, and 0.25 for Factor 3.

Floden et al (2022)⁶ conducted a post hoc analysis of the TRANSFORM-2¹ study to compare the changes from baseline in total and individual item scores of the PHQ-9 and MADRS scales between the SPRAVATO+oral AD group and the placebo+oral AD group. Although the study did not measure anhedonia as a distinct subscale, it was reported on the individual items within the PHQ-9 and MADRS scales. PHQ-9 and MADRS assessments were conducted at baseline and on days 15 and 28. Analyses were not adjusted for multiple comparisons.

Results

• The analysis included 223 patients (SPRAVATO group, n=114; placebo group, n=109). The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups.
• In both treatment groups, the total PHQ-9 and MADRS scores improved from baseline to days 15 and 28, with the SPRAVATO group showing greater improvement than the placebo group at day 15 and day 28 for PHQ-9, and at day 28 for MADRS.
  • The change in total MADRS scores on day 28 in the SPRAVATO+AD group was significantly larger than that of the placebo+AD group (P=0.017).
• The proportion of patients who experienced ≥1-point improvement for each of the 9 items of the PHQ-9 scale was greater in the SPRAVATO group than in the placebo group. Improvements on items 1 (little interest/pleasure in things) and 4 (feeling tired or having little energy) were significantly higher in the SPRAVATO+oral AD group.  
• See Table: Proportion of Patients With ≥1-point Improvement in PHQ-9 Items.

• The proportion of patients who improved by ≥2 points was higher in the SPRAVATO+oral AD group vs the placebo+oral AD group for all 10 items of the MADRS scale on days 15 and 28. Improvement on item 8 (inability to feel) was significantly higher in the SPRAVATO+oral AD group. See Table: Proportion of Patients With ≥2-point Improvement in MADRS Items.

Post Hoc Analysis of Studies in Major Depressive Disorder and Active Suicidal Ideation with Intent

Canuso et al (2021)⁷ conducted a post hoc analysis of data pooled from the ASPIRE-1 and-2 studies,^3,4 which were phase 3, short-term studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 84 mg SPRAVATO+SOC vs placebo+SOC in adult patients with major depressive disorder with active suicidal ideation with intent. Although the study did not measure anhedonia as a separate subscale, individual items from the MADRS subscale related to anhedonia were reported. MADRS subscale items were reported at 4 hours, 24 hours, and day 25 (predose). No adjustments were made for multiplicity.

Results

• The analysis included 451 patients (SPRAVATO+SOC, n=226; Placebo+SOC, n=225).
• In an analysis of individual MADRS items during the double-blind phase, patients in the SPRAVATO+SOC group vs the placebo+SOC group showed a greater likelihood of achieving clinically meaningful improvement (defined as ≥2-point improvement) on all symptoms of depression, including lassitude and inability to feel.
• A complete list of improvements in individual MADRS item scores were reported at 4 hours, 24 hours, and day 25 following the first SPRAVATO+SOC dose (see Table: Improvements in Individual Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Rating Scale Item Scores)

Real-world Study in Treatment-Resistant Depression

Pepe et al (2023)⁸ reported the effect of 3 months of treatment with SPRAVATO in patients with TRD using both clinician-rated and patient-rated scales. The study evaluated anhedonia (using the subitem 8 of MADRS [inability to feel] and the total score of Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale [SHAPS]), sleep alterations (using the subitem 4 of MADRS and subitem 16 of Beck Depression Inventory [BDI]), cognitive symptoms (using the subitem 6 of MADRS, Digit Symbol Substitution Test [DSST], and Perceived Deficits Questionnaire for Depression - 5 items [PDQ-D5]), suicidality (using the subitem 10 of MADRS and subitem 9 of BDI), and anxiety (using the total scores of the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HARS] and the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale [SAS]).

Results

• The study included 25 patients in Italy (female, 44%; mean age, 55.1 years).
• A significant, positive correlation was found between the clinician-rated and patient-rated measures:
  • MADRS-BDI total scores: Pearson’s r, 0.65; P<0.001
  • MADRS item 8-SHAPS total score: Pearson’s r, 0.47; P< 0.001
  • MADRS item 4-BDI item 16: Pearson’s r, 0.34; P=0.01)
  • MADRS item 6-PDQ-D5 total score: Pearson’s r, 0.59; P<0.001
  • MADRS item 10-BDI item 9: Pearson’s r, 0.57; P<0.001
  • HARS-SAS total scores: Pearson’s r, 0.86; P<0.001
• A significant reduction in MADRS item 8 [inability to feel] scores were found at months 1, 2, and 3 from baseline: mean (standard error [SE]) change at 1 month, -0.83 (0.28); P=0.005; mean (SE) change at 2 months, -1.09 (0.29); P<0.001; and mean (SE) change at 3 months, -1.42 (0.30), P<0.001.
• Patient-rated evaluation for anhedonia using SHAPS showed significant improvements at months 2 and 3 from baseline: mean (SE) change at 1 month, -1.04 (0.77); P=0.181; mean (SE) change at 2 months, -1.38 (0.68); P=0.04; and mean (SE) change at 3 months, -2.38 (0.82), P=0.006.

Literature Search

A literature search of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, BIOSIS Previews^®, and DERWENT^® (and/or other resources, including internal/external databases) pertaining to this topic was conducted on 12 February 2025.

This response excludes case reports, case series, and phase 2 clinical trials.^9-12