Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of lemborexant in adults with insomnia: comparing Japanese and non-Japanese subgroups from the global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SUNRISE 2 study.

ABSTRACT:

Study objective

Whether there are racial differences in the efficacy/safety of hypnotics has not been sufficiently investigated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy/safety of lemborexant 5 mg and lemborexant 10 mg vs placebo once daily in a subset of Japanese patients with insomnia and to compare the results with those of non-Japanese patients.

Methods

This subanalysis reports the results of the first 6 months (period 1, placebo-controlled) of SUNRISE 2, a 12-month, global, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study. Changes in patient-reported sleep onset latency, patient-reported sleep efficiency, and patient-reported wake after sleep onset with lemborexant 5 mg or lemborexant 10 mg vs placebo were evaluated. Treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated for safety.

Results

In total, 949 patients were randomized (Japanese, n = 161; non-Japanese, n = 788). Groups were balanced at baseline except for the male/female ratio (P = .0002) and body mass index (P < .0001) in the Japanese vs non-Japanese subgroups. Overall, the efficacy and safety of lemborexant were similar between subgroups. In the Japanese subgroup, the subjective sleep onset latency change from baseline was significant after 7 nights and 6 months with lemborexant 10 mg vs placebo, the subjective sleep efficiency change from baseline was significant after 7 nights with lemborexant 10 mg vs placebo, and the subjective wake after sleep onset change from baseline was significant at 6 months with lemborexant 5 mg vs placebo. The incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent between both subgroups.

Conclusions

Lemborexant 5 mg and 10 mg improved sleep onset and sleep maintenance over 6 months and was well-tolerated in both the Japanese and non-Japanese patients. The safety profiles of lemborexant 5 mg and 10 mg were consistent between the subgroups.

Clinical trial registration

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Long-term Study of Lemborexant in Insomnia Disorder (SUNRISE 2); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02952820; Identifier: NCT02952820; and Registry: ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu; Identifier: 2015-001463-39.

SUBMITTER: Inoue Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8320475 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of lemborexant in adults with insomnia: comparing Japanese and non-Japanese subgroups from the global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SUNRISE 2 study.

Inoue Yuichi Y Watanabe Takeshi T Takashima Shuya S Takase Takao T Ishikawa Kohei K Kubota Naoki N Yardley Jane J Moline Margaret M

Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 20210501 5

<h4>Study objective</h4>Whether there are racial differences in the efficacy/safety of hypnotics has not been sufficiently investigated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy/safety of lemborexant 5 mg and lemborexant 10 mg vs placebo once daily in a subset of Japanese patients with insomnia and to compare the results with those of non-Japanese patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This subanalysis reports the results of the first 6 months (period 1, placebo-controlled) of SUNRISE 2, a 12-month, global, randomiz ...[more]

PMID: 33576735

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectivesTo identify dose(s) of lemborexant that maximize insomnia treatment efficacy while minimizing next-morning residual sleepiness and evaluate lemborexant effects on polysomnography (PSG) measures (sleep efficiency [SE], latency to persistent sleep [LPS], and wake after sleep onset [WASO]) at the beginning and end of treatment.MethodsAdults and elderly subjects with insomnia disorder per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Bayesian, adaptive, parallel-group study, receiving lemborexant (1, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 25 mg) or placebo for 15 nights. Efficacy assessments included a utility function that combined efficacy (SE) and safety (residual morning sleepiness as measured by Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [KSS]), PSG measures, and sleep diary. Safety assessments included KSS, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, computerized reaction time tests, and adverse events (AEs).ResultsA total of 616 subjects were screened; 291 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar between lemborexant groups and placebo (∼63% female, median age: 49.0 years). The study was stopped for early success after the fifth interim analysis when the 15-mg dose met utility index/KSS criteria for success; 3 other doses also met the criteria. Compared with placebo, subjects showed significant improvements in SE, subjective SE, LPS, and subjective sleep onset latency at the beginning and end of treatment for lemborexant doses ≥ 5 mg (P < .05). WASO and subjective WASO showed numerically greater improvements for doses > 1 mg. AEs, mostly mild to moderate, included dose-related somnolence.ConclusionsLemborexant doses ranging from 2.5-10 mg provided efficacy for the treatment of insomnia while minimizing next-morning residual sleepiness.Clinical trial registrationTitle: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Design, Dose Response Study of the Efficacy of E2006 in Adults and Elderly Subjects With Chronic Insomnia; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01995838; Identifier: NCT01995838.

Project description:See Thibault et al. (doi:10.1093/awx033) for a scientific commentary on this article.Neurofeedback training builds upon the simple concept of instrumental conditioning, i.e. behaviour that is rewarded is more likely to reoccur, an effect Thorndike referred to as the 'law of effect'. In the case of neurofeedback, information about specific electroencephalographic activity is fed back to the participant who is rewarded whenever the desired electroencephalography pattern is generated. If some kind of hyperarousal needs to be addressed, the neurofeedback community considers sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback as the gold standard. Earlier treatment approaches using sensorimotor-rhythm neurofeedback indicated that training to increase 12-15 Hz sensorimotor rhythm over the sensorimotor cortex during wakefulness could reduce attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and epilepsy symptoms and even improve sleep quality by enhancing sleep spindle activity (lying in the same frequency range). In the present study we sought to critically test whether earlier findings on the positive effect of sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback on sleep quality and memory could also be replicated in a double-blind placebo-controlled study on 25 patients with insomnia. Patients spent nine polysomnography nights and 12 sessions of neurofeedback and 12 sessions of placebo-feedback training (sham) in our laboratory. Crucially, we found both neurofeedback and placebo feedback to be equally effective as reflected in subjective measures of sleep complaints suggesting that the observed improvements were due to unspecific factors such as experiencing trust and receiving care and empathy from experimenters. In addition, these improvements were not reflected in objective electroencephalographic-derived measures of sleep quality. Furthermore, objective electroencephalographic measures that potentially reflected mechanisms underlying the efficacy of neurofeedback such as spectral electroencephalographic measures and sleep spindle parameters remained unchanged following 12 training sessions. A stratification into 'true' insomnia patients and 'insomnia misperceivers' (subjective, but no objective sleep problems) did not alter the results. Based on this comprehensive and well-controlled study, we conclude that for the treatment of primary insomnia, neurofeedback does not have a specific efficacy beyond unspecific placebo effects. Importantly, we do not find an advantage of neurofeedback over placebo feedback, therefore it cannot be recommended as an alternative to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, the current (non-pharmacological) standard-of-care treatment. In addition, our study may foster a critical discussion that generally questions the effectiveness of neurofeedback, and emphasizes the importance of demonstrating neurofeedback efficacy in other study samples and disorders using truly placebo and double-blind controlled trials.

Project description:ObjectiveInsomnia is prevalent among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Research indicates that sleep disruption may amplify clinical pain by altering central pain modulation, suggesting that treatment of insomnia may improve pain. The aims of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in patients with knee OA, to determine whether improvements in sleep predict reduced pain, and to determine whether alterations in pain modulation mediate improvements in clinical pain.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind, active placebo-controlled clinical trial of CBT-I in 100 patients with knee OA and insomnia (mean ± SD age 59.4 ± 9.5 years). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either 8 sessions of CBT-I or behavioral desensitization (placebo). We conducted in-home polysomnography (PSG), diary assessment, and sensory tests of pain modulation at baseline, posttreatment, 3 months, and 6 months.ResultsIntent-to-treat analyses demonstrated substantial improvement in sleep in both groups of patients. Patients in the CBT-I group had significantly greater reductions in wake after sleep onset (WASO), as measured by patient diary and PSG. Patients in both groups reported significant and comparable reductions in pain over 6 months, with one-third reporting a 30% reduction in pain severity. Baseline-to-posttreatment reductions in WASO as measured by diary and PSG predicted subsequent decreases in clinical pain. This effect was significantly greater for CBT-I compared with behavioral desensitization. No significant changes in laboratory measures of pain modulation were observed.ConclusionCompared with active placebo, CBT-I was efficacious in reducing sleep maintenance insomnia. CBT-I decreased clinical pain, but not pain modulation, suggesting that it has the potential to augment pain management in knee OA. Future work is needed to identify the mechanisms by which improved sleep reduces clinical pain.

Project description:IntroductionFibromyalgia is characterized by widespread pain and is often accompanied by accessory symptoms. There are limited treatment options for this condition in Japan. Therefore, we conducted a phase III study to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in Japanese patients with fibromyalgia.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial was conducted in Japan. Outpatients who met the American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for fibromyalgia and whose Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain score was ≥4 were randomized to duloxetine 60 mg or placebo once daily for 14 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the change in the BPI average pain score from baseline. Secondary efficacy, quality of life (QoL), and safety outcomes were also evaluated. Mixed-effects model repeated-measures (MMRM) analysis and last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis of covariance were used to evaluate the primary efficacy measure.ResultsOverall, 393 patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine (n = 196) or placebo (n = 197). The MMRM analysis revealed no significant difference between duloxetine and placebo regarding the change in BPI average pain scores at week 14. Based on LOCF analysis, a statistically significant improvement in the change in BPI average pain scores at week 14 was observed for patients treated with duloxetine compared with placebo. Duloxetine treatment was associated with improved outcomes in nearly all secondary and post hoc analyses. The treatment was generally well tolerated. Somnolence, nausea, and constipation were the most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the duloxetine group. The discontinuation rates due to treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in both groups.ConclusionsAlthough the MMRM analysis did not demonstrate superiority of duloxetine over placebo, duloxetine treatment was associated with improved outcomes in secondary and post hoc analyses of the mean change in the BPI average pain score and most of the secondary outcomes, including analgesia and QoL. Duloxetine treatment was safe and well tolerated. These results suggest that duloxetine treatment could be associated with improvements in pain relief and QoL in Japanese patients with fibromyalgia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552057 . Registered 9 March 2012.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of lemborexant in adults with insomnia: comparing Japanese and non-Japanese subgroups from the global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SUNRISE 2 study.

Study objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration

Publications

Efficacy and safety of lemborexant in adults with insomnia: comparing Japanese and non-Japanese subgroups from the global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SUNRISE 2 study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets