Search

Background: Few treatments are available for patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (IH). Modafinil, an established treatment for narcolepsy, was tested for efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with IH without long sleep time.Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparison study was conducted at 20 institutions in Japan. Patients who met the diagnostic criteria of IH in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders (second edition) were included. The study comprised a ≥17-day observation period and a 3-week treatment period during which modafinil (200 mg) or placebo was administered orally once daily (in the morning). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in mean sleep latency on the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT). Adverse events (AEs) were also recorded to evaluate safety.Results: In total, 123 patients were screened and 71 were randomized to receive modafinil (N = 34) or placebo (N = 37). Patients treated with modafinil experienced a significantly prolonged mean sleep latency on the MWT at the end of the study compared with placebo (5.02 min, 95% confidence interval: 3.26-6.77 min; p < 0.001). AEs occurred in 58.8% (20/34) and 27.0% (10/37) of patients in the modafinil and placebo groups, respectively. Frequent AEs in the modafinil group were headache (n = 6), dry mouth (n = 3), and nausea (n = 3); no clinically significant AEs occurred.Conclusion: Modafinil was shown to be an effective and safe treatment for excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with IH without long sleep time.Clinical Trial Registration: JapicCTI; 142539. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Backgrounds: Antidepressants are widely used to treat major depressive disorder. First-line treatments with antidepressants are only successful in one-third of patients; however, evidence from randomized controlled trials on second-line treatments is limited. Moreover, recently acceptability is suggested to be a good indicator of overall treatment success.Methods: This is a multi-center two-arm, three-phased randomized controlled trial performed in Japan from December 2013 to March 2017 comparing the acceptability of escitalopram and duloxetine as a second-line drug. Patients, who failed to respond to antidepressants such as sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, milnacipran or mirtazapine for at least 3 weeks, were randomized to either escitalopram (Group A) or duloxetine (Group B) in Step 1 (8 weeks). In Step 2 (8 weeks), the drug was switched to the other if the first drug failed. The discontinuation rate at the end of Step 1 was the primary endpoint and non-inferiority of escitalopram vs duloxetine was tested. In addition, change in clinical measures from baseline were also assessed at the end of Step 1, 2 and up to 52 weeks.Results: At the end of Step 1, Group A (n = 82) was significantly superior to Group B (n = 78) in discontinuation rate (4.9% to 19.2%, P = 0.007). The change in clinical indices from baseline were not different between the groups at either timepoint.Limitations: As the major reason for discontinuation in Group B was the "withdrawal of consent" the concrete reason could not be verified.Conclusions: As a second-line treatment drug, escitalopram was suggested to be non-inferior to duloxetine in acceptability.Trial Registration: UMINCTR(UMIN000012367), registered on December 1st, 2013 and last updated on April 4th, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hangovers are associated with negative economic consequences due to decreased job performance or frequent visits to physicians. Thus, a new strategy for the alleviation of hangover-related symptoms is needed to avoid this detriment to society. The purpose of this nationwide randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled physicians' trial was to evaluate the efficacy of loxoprofen sodium for the alleviation of fatigue, headache, and nausea after hangover. A total of 229 participants were randomized to receive loxoprofen sodium (60 mg once orally) or placebo. The study was closed when the first 150 participants (n = 74 in the loxoprofen vs. n = 76 in the placebo groups) experienced hangovers. The primary endpoint was set as the difference in severity of general fatigue before and 3 h after taking the test drugs and was evaluated using a visual analogue scale. Secondary endpoints included difference in severity of headache, nausea, and incidence of adverse events. The study participants were 34 (interquartile range; 30-39) years old, 92.0% were men, and both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics. The alleviation of general fatigue did not differ statistically between the loxoprofen and placebo groups (24 [14-49] vs. 19 [9-35], p = 0.07). However, the alleviation of headache was statistically greater in the loxoprofen group (25 [10-50] vs. 10 [2-30], adjusted difference 14, 95% confidence interval 8-21, p < 0.001), whereas, there was no difference in nausea (7 [0-27] vs. 10 [0-24], p = 0.68). The incidence of adverse symptoms such as epigastric discomfort was also comparable between groups (2.7% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.25). Loxoprofen sodium was effective for relieving headaches after hangovers but did not alleviate general fatigue or nausea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Internet-based intervention could help drug users recover from drug dependence. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a newly developed web-based relapse prevention program (e-SMARPP) for people with a drug problem, including the use of methamphetamine, in Japan.Methods: The study was a pilot randomized controlled trial comprised of 48 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with drug use disorder. The participants were randomly assigned to an eight-week, six-session web-based relapse prevention program (an intervention group) or only web-based self-monitoring (a control group). The primary outcome was the duration of abstinence from a primary drug during the intervention and relapse risk. Secondary outcomes included motivation to change, self-efficacy, and money spent on drugs. The outcomes, except for the duration of abstinence during the intervention, were assessed at baseline, 2-, 5-, and 8-months. Program completion rate was also assessed.Results: No significant difference was observed between the intervention and the control groups for the primary and the secondary outcomes. The effect size of the duration of abstinence during the intervention was d = 0.42, which was comparable to previous studies. In the intervention group, about 26% did not complete the entire intervention.Conclusions: e-SMARPP failed to demonstrate efficacy, however, is potentially helpful for enhancing abstinence. The low attrition rate may suggest the acceptance and feasibility of the program. Further improvement of the program and evaluation in a full-scale trial are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]