Abstract

Introduction

In Phase 3 Study 304 (NCT02783729), lemborexant (LEM) provided significant benefit versus placebo (PBO) on polysomnographic (PSG) and sleep diary-based sleep onset and maintenance outcomes over 1mo in subjects with insomnia disorder. Based on evidence that patients with insomnia and objective short sleep (ISS [total sleep time; TST] <6hrs) may respond less well to interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) than patients with insomnia and objective long sleep (TST ≥6hrs), we conducted post-hoc analyses of LEM efficacy in the ISS subgroup (subjects with PSG TST<6hrs).

Methods

Study 304 was a 1mo, randomized, double-blind, PBO- and active-controlled, parallel-group study in female (age ≥55y) and male (age ≥65y) subjects (n=1006). Subjects received PBO, LEM 5mg (LEM5), LEM 10mg (LEM10), or zolpidem tartrate extended-release 6.25mg (ZOL). Latency to persistent sleep (LPS) and wake after sleep onset (WASO) were assessed at Nights (NT) 1/2 and NT29/30 using PSG and averaged; change from baseline (paired PSGs during single-blind PBO run-in) were analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measurement analysis.

Results

The ISS subgroup comprised 710/1006 (70.58%) subjects. Mean (SD) baseline LPS was similar across treatments: PBO=52.80(35.73); ZOL=54.77(40.93); LEM5=54.28(39.30); LEM10=53.31(34.45). On NT1/2, LEM5/10 led to statistically significantly greater (P<0.05) decreases from baseline (PBO=−9.65[36.52]; ZOL=−17.78[36.34]; LEM5=−22.02[31.62]; LEM10=−25.42[34.73]) versus PBO and ZOL. On NT29/30, LEM5/10 led to statistically significantly greater (P<0.0005) decreases from baseline (PBO=−11.88[35.09]; ZOL=−12.57[38.50]; LEM5=−25.37[37.06]; LEM10=−28.20[34.75] versus PBO. ZOL was not different from PBO. Mean (SD) baseline WASO was similar: PBO=123.79(37.21); ZOL=128.37(38.94); LEM5=128.14(37.52); LEM10=129.07(37.98). On NT1/2, LEM5/10 led to statistically significantly greater (P<0.0001) decreases from baseline (LSM[SE]: PBO=−23.52[2.74]; ZOL=−54.74[2.47]; LEM5=−60.58[2.45]; LEM10=−69.35[2.41] versus PBO. LEM10 was significantly different than ZOL (P<0.0001). On NT29/30, LEM5/10 led to statistically significantly greater (P<0.0001) decreases from baseline (PBO=−29.62[3.09]; ZOL=−46.86[2.80]; LEM5=−52.67[2.74]; LEM10=−55.37[2.70] versus PBO. LEM10 was significantly different than ZOL (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The data support LEM as an effective therapy for older adult patients with ISS and suggest LEM may be more beneficial than ZOL, particularly for patients with ISS and sleep onset difficulties. These findings suggest that LEM may be a reasonable therapy to consider for treating older patients with ISS where CBT-I may have relatively limited efficacy.

Support (If Any)

Eisai Inc.

This content is only available as a PDF.
This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://dbpia.nl.go.kr/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)

Comments

0 Comments
Submit a comment
You have entered an invalid code
Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.