Efficacy and Safety of Transitioning to Lemborexant from Z-drug, Suvorexant, and Ramelteon in Japanese Insomnia Patients: An Open-label, Multicenter Study

Introduction For patients with chronic insomnia, conventional therapy may not always provide satisfactory efficacy and safety. Thus, switching to an alternative therapeutic agent can be explored. However, there is a lack of prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of such changes. This prosp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Advances in therapy 2024-04, Vol.41 (4), p.1728-1745
Hauptverfasser: Ozone, Motohiro, Hirota, Susumu, Ariyoshi, Yu, Hayashida, Kenichi, Ikegami, Azusa, Habukawa, Mitsunari, Ohshima, Hayato, Harada, Daisuke, Hiejima, Hiroshi, Kotorii, Nozomu, Murotani, Kenta, Taninaga, Takehiro, Uchimura, Naohisa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction For patients with chronic insomnia, conventional therapy may not always provide satisfactory efficacy and safety. Thus, switching to an alternative therapeutic agent can be explored. However, there is a lack of prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of such changes. This prospective, non-randomized, open-label, interventional, multicenter study assessed whether Japanese patients with chronic insomnia dissatisfied with treatment could transition directly to lemborexant (LEM) from four cohorts—non-benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic (zolpidem, zopiclone, or eszopiclone) monotherapy, dual orexin receptor antagonist (suvorexant) monotherapy, suvorexant + benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), and melatonin receptor agonist (ramelteon) combination. We evaluated whether transitioning to LEM improved patient satisfaction based on efficacy and safety. Methods The primary endpoint was the proportion of successful transitions to LEM at 2 weeks (titration phase end), defined as the proportion of patients on LEM by the end of the 2-week titration phase who were willing to continue on LEM during the maintenance phase (Weeks 2–14). Patient satisfaction and safety (the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]) were assessed at 14 weeks (end of titration and maintenance phases). Results Among the 90 patients enrolled, 95.6% (95% confidence interval: 89.0–98.8%) successfully transitioned to LEM at 2 weeks. The proportions of patients who successfully continued on LEM were 97.8% and 82.2% at the end of the titration and maintenance phases (Weeks 2 and 14), respectively. The overall incidence of TEAEs was 47.8%; no serious TEAEs occurred. In all cohorts, the proportions of patients with positive responses were higher than the proportions with negative responses on the three scales of the Patient Global Impression-Insomnia version. During the maintenance phase, Insomnia Severity Index scores generally improved at Weeks 2, 6, and 14 of LEM transition. Conclusions Direct transition to LEM may be a valid treatment option for patients with insomnia who are dissatisfied with current treatment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04742699.
ISSN:0741-238X
1865-8652
1865-8652
DOI:10.1007/s12325-024-02811-2