4.7 Article

Daridorexant, a new dual orexin receptor antagonist, in elderly subjects with insomnia disorder

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 94, 期 21, 页码 E2222-E2232

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009475

关键词

-

资金

  1. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the dose-response of daridorexant, a new dual orexin receptor antagonist, on wake after sleep onset (WASO). Methods Elderly (>= 65 years) participants (n = 58) with insomnia were randomly allocated (Latin square design) to receive 5 treatments (5, 10, 25, and 50 mg daridorexant and placebo) during 5 treatment periods, each consisting of 2 treatment nights followed by a 5- to 12-day washout period. Main efficacy endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in WASO (primary) and latency to persistent sleep (LPS; secondary) to days 1 and 2 (mean of 2 treatment nights assessed by polysomnography) in each period. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results Of 58 participants included, 67% were female, and the median age was 69 years (range 65-85 years). WASO and LPS were dose-dependently reduced from baseline to days 1 and 2 after daridorexant administration (multiple comparison procedure modeling,p< 0.0001 andp= 0.004, respectively); reductions were statistically significant for doses >= 10 mg compared with placebo (WASO: -32.0, -45.1, -61.4 minutes; LPS: -44.9, -43.8, -45.4 minutes for 10, 25, and 50 mg, respectively,p <= 0.025). Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar for daridorexant and placebo; the most frequent were fatigue, nasopharyngitis, gait disturbance, and headache (<= 7% in any group). Conclusions Daridorexant was well tolerated. Dose-dependent improvements in WASO and LPS were statistically significant (dose range 10-50 mg) in elderly people with insomnia disorder. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02841709. Classification of evidence This study provides Class I evidence that, for elderly people with insomnia, daridorexant reduced WASO.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据