Search

Introduction Dosing paradigms for transitioning patients to lemborexant (LEM) from zolpidem (ZOL: immediate [IR] or extended-release [ER]) were examined in E2006-A001-312 (Study 312; NCT04009577), an open-label pilot study. Given insomnia prevalence in women, post hoc analyses in female subjects were conducted. Methods Study 312 included: 3-week Screening Period (subjects continued ZOL); 2-week Titration Period (TITR); 12-week Extension Period (EXT); 4-week Follow-up. Adults with insomnia taking ZOL-IR or ZOL-ER intermittently (3–4 nights/week) or frequently (≥5 nights/week) were enrolled. Subjects with intermittent, or one week each of intermittent and frequent ZOL use, were assigned to Cohort-1 and started TITR with LEM 5mg (LEM5). Frequent ZOL users (Cohort-2) were randomized 1:1 to LEM5 (Cohort-2A) or LEM 10mg (LEM10; Cohort-2B). Subjects who transitioned to LEM could opt into EXT. Subjects could change LEM dose during TITR (only once) and during EXT. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who transitioned to LEM at end of TITR. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed by dose at time of TEAE. Results Overall, 35 subjects were female and 29/35 (82.9%) transitioned to LEM. In Cohort-1, 7 subjects began TITR; all transitioned to LEM (5 subjects ended TITR on LEM5; 2 ended on LEM10). In Cohort-2A, 14 subjects began TITR with LEM5; 12/14 (85.7%) transitioned (6 subjects each ended TITR on LEM5 or LEM10). In Cohort-2B, 14 subjects began TITR with LEM10; 10/14 (71.4%) transitioned to LEM (3 subjects ended TITR on LEM5 and 7 on LEM10). All 29 transitioned subjects opted into EXT, and 27/29 (93.1%) completed the study. Based on modal dose (most frequent dose taken during TITR and EXT combined) groups, median time to first dose change during EXT was 14.5 and 17.0 days for LEM5 and LEM10, respectively. Overall, most TEAEs were mild/moderate in severity. Across TITR and EXT, more TEAEs occurred with LEM10 than with LEM5; the most common TEAEs were somnolence (n=3) and abnormal dreams (n=3). Conclusion Most female subjects successfully transitioned from intermittent or frequent ZOL-IR/ZOL-ER use to LEM and completed the study. LEM was generally well tolerated. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in Phase 3 studies. Support (if any) Eisai Inc.

Introduction E2006-A001-312 (Study 312; NCT04009577) was an open-label pilot study that examined pre-specified dosing paradigms for transitioning patients from zolpidem (ZOL: immediate [IR] or extended-release [ER]) to the dual orexin receptor antagonist lemborexant (LEM; 5mg [LEM5] or 10mg [LEM10]). Methods Study 312 included a 3-week Screening Period (subjects continued ZOL), 2-week Titration Period (TITR), 12-week Extension Period (EXT), and 4-week Follow-up Period. Adults with insomnia who were intermittent (3–4 nights/week) or frequent (≥5 nights/week) ZOL-IR or ZOL-ER users participated. Intermittent ZOL users and subjects with one week each of intermittent and frequent ZOL usage were assigned to Cohort-1 and began TITR with LEM5. Frequent ZOL users were assigned to Cohort-2 and randomized 1:1 to LEM5 or LEM10. Subjects who successfully transitioned to LEM had the option to enter EXT. During TITR and EXT, subjects could change LEM dose (only once during TITR). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who transitioned to LEM at the end of TITR. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed based on dose at time of TEAE. Results Fifty-three subjects enrolled (Cohort-1, n=10; Cohort-2, n=43). Of these, 43/53 (81.1%) transitioned to LEM at the end of TITR; all 43 (100.0%) entered EXT wherein 41/43 subjects received treatment. Three of these subjects discontinued treatment during EXT, so that 38/41 (92.7%) subjects entered EXT, received treatment and completed EXT. At the end of EXT, 25/41 (61.0%) subjects were receiving LEM10 and 16/41 (39.0%) were receiving LEM5. Based on modal dose (most frequent dose taken during TITR and EXT combined) groups, median time to first dose change was 14.5 days and 36.0 days for LEM5 and LEM10, respectively. The majority of TEAEs were mild/moderate in severity. Across the study (TITR and EXT), more TEAEs occurred with LEM10 than LEM5; the most common TEAEs were somnolence (n=4) and abnormal dreams (n=4). Conclusion Study results support the view that patients can successfully transition directly from ZOL to LEM. LEM was generally well tolerated; the safety profile was consistent with that observed in Phase 3 clinical development. Support (if any) Eisai Inc.

Introduction Treatment for insomnia often includes prescription medication but some commonly prescribed insomnia drugs, such as the GABA-ergic agonist zolpidem (ZOL), are associated with safety concerns in older adults. Studies examining methods for transitioning patients between insomnia medications of different drug classes are needed. Lemborexant (LEM) is a dual orexin receptor antagonist (DORA) that is approved in the US, Canada, and Japan for the treatment of insomnia in adults. Study E2006-A001-312 (Study 312; NCT04009577) was a pilot study designed to examine pre-planned dosing approaches for directly transitioning from ZOL (immediate [IR] or extended release [ER] formulations) to LEM (5mg [LEM5] or 10mg [LEM10]). Here we present a post hoc analysis of outcomes in subjects aged ≥60y from Study 312. Methods The design of Study 312 comprised a 3-week Screening Period (SCR; subjects continued ZOL), 2-week Titration Period (TITR), 12-week Extension Period (EXT), and 4-week Follow-up Period. Adults with insomnia who were intermittent (INT; 3-4 nights/week) or frequent (FREQ; ≥5 nights/week) users of ZOL-IR or ZOL-ER participated. Cohort 1 included INT ZOL users and subjects with one week each of INT and FREQ ZOL usage; subjects began TITR with LEM5. Cohort 2 included FREQ ZOL users who were randomized 1:1 to LEM5 (Cohort 2A) or LEM10 (Cohort 2B). Subjects who successfully transitioned to LEM could choose to enter EXT. Subjects could change LEM dose during TITR (one dose change allowed) and EXT. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who transitioned to LEM at the end of TITR. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed based on dose at time of TEAE. Results Of the 53 subjects in the Full Analysis Set (Cohort 1, n=10; Cohort 2, n=43), 30 subjects were age ≥60y (Cohort 1, n=6; Cohort 2, n=24); mean (SD) age was 67.5 (4.9) years and 76.7% were female. During SCR, 63.3% of these 30 subjects reported that waking too early was their main sleep complaint, followed by difficulty staying asleep (30.0%) and difficulty falling asleep (6.7%). Overall, 23/30 (76.7%) transitioned to LEM after TITR. In Cohort 1, 5/6 (83.3%) transitioned, with 3 ending TITR on LEM5, and 2 on LEM10. In Cohort 2A (LEM5), 7/8 (87.5%) transitioned; with 3 ending TITR on LEM5 and 4 on LEM10. In Cohort 2B (LEM10), 11/16 (68.8%) transitioned; 1 ending TITR on LEM5 and 10 on LEM10. For the 7 subjects who discontinued during TITR, 1 subject (on LEM5) opted to discontinue and 6 subjects discontinued due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 1 each of intentional overdose, hemiparalysis, nausea, over-sedation, paralysis, and diarrhea; 2 were on LEM5 and 4 were on LEM10 at the time of the TEAE). The hemiparalysis and paralysis were not adjudicated as cataplexy. All 23 subjects who transitioned to LEM chose to continue in EXT. One subject discontinued during EXT and 22/30 (73.3%) subjects completed the study. Based on modal dose (defined as most frequent dose taken during TITR and EXT combined) groups, median time to first dose change during EXT was 15 days and 55 days for LEM5 and LEM10, respectively. Across the study (TITR and EXT), TEAEs occurred more frequently with LEM10 than with LEM5; the most common TEAEs (in 2 or more subjects) for either LEM dose were abnormal dreams (n=4) and somnolence (n=2). All TEAEs were mild to moderate in severity. Conclusions The majority of older subjects from Study 312 successfully transitioned from INT or FREQ ZOL-IR or ZOL-ER use to LEM, and completed the study. LEM was generally well tolerated with a safety profile that was consistent with that observed in Phase 3 clinical development. Funding Eisai Inc.

Background Safe/well-tolerated treatments for bipolar I depression remain limited. We assessed safety/tolerability of adjunctive open-label armodafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent evaluated in 3 acute, controlled efficacy studies with variable efficacy results. Methods Completers of three 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled adjunctive armodafinil studies (150–200 mg/day added to ongoing stable maintenance doses of 1 or 2 protocol-defined mood stabilizers) in bipolar I depression could enter this 6-month, open-label extension study. Objectives included evaluation of safety/tolerability (primary) and efficacy (secondary). Results 867 patients enrolled; 863 received ≥1 dose of armodafinil and 506 (58%) completed the 6-month study. Headache, insomnia, and anxiety were the most common adverse events (AEs) reported, whereas akathisia, nausea, sedation/somnolence, and weight increase were uncommon. Mean measures assessing emergence of mania, anxiety, insomnia, or suicidality showed no worsening. Discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 57 (7%) patients. Serious AEs occurred in 27 (3%) patients and were considered treatment-related in 8 (1%) patients. Depressive symptoms improved over the 6 months, as did patient functioning. Limitations Lack of placebo control. Conclusions Adjunctive armodafinil was generally safe and well tolerated over 6 months of open-label treatment at 150–200 mg/day when taken with protocol-defined mood stabilizers for bipolar I depression. This 6-month open-label study suggested that armodafinil augmentation of bipolar maintenance therapies may have a favorable risk profile and may improve depressive symptoms in some patients with bipolar I depression.

Introduction Patients who take insomnia medication may change medications for reasons including lack of efficacy, adverse events, and dependence concerns. A pilot study (NCT04009577, E2006-A001-312) assessed a dosing approach for transitioning patients from zolpidem tartrate (ZOL; immediate or extended-release) to lemborexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist. Here we describe characteristics of subjects who entered the study Screening Period and their reasons for wanting to change medications. Methods This multicenter pilot study was conducted in the U.S. and enrolled subjects age ≥18y with insomnia diagnosed per DSM-5 criteria, and who used ZOL (self-reported intermittently [3-4 nights/week] or frequently [≥5 nights/week]) as their only insomnia treatment. Subjects entered a 3-week Screening Period, during which frequency/dose of ZOL taken was recorded; subjects also wore an actigraph continuously. Eligible subjects thereafter entered the Treatment Phase to determine lemborexant dosing (5 or 10mg during a 2-week Titration Period with assignment to 1 of 3 treatment schedules based on ZOL usage frequency during Screening), followed by a 12-week Extension (Maintenance) Phase and a 4-week Follow-up Period. Results Forty-nine subjects entered the Screening period and completed the Chief Complaint Form through November 2019; mean(SD) age was 57.1(13.8)y, 67.3% were female, 69.4% were white, and 28.6% were black. 31 subjects reported using ZOL frequently and 15 reported using ZOL intermittently (3 missing). The most common sleep complaint was waking up too early (n=33), followed by difficulty staying asleep (n=13), and difficulty falling asleep (n=3). Reasons for wanting to switch from ZOL included: ZOL not working (n=19), concerns about taking ZOL (n=14), wanting to try something new/potentially better (n=6), side effects (n=5), and residual daytime sleepiness (n=4). 43/49 subjects completed screening through this period. Conclusion This study offers the opportunity to understand patients’ current use of insomnia medication and their motivation for wanting to change insomnia medications. Support Eisai Inc.

Introduction Switching of medications for insomnia occurs often in clinical practice based on a variety of reasons. However, few clinical studies have examined methods for transitioning patients between different insomnia medications. This is especially important to consider when the classes of drugs are different (e.g., GABA-ergic agonism vs orexin receptor antagonism); thus, clinical guidance would be valuable. The safety and efficacy of the dual orexin receptor antagonist lemborexant (LEM) for the treatment of insomnia was confirmed in two Phase 3 studies, SUNRISE-1 (NCT02783729, E2006-G000-304) and SUNRISE-2 (NCT02952820, E2006-G000-303). This pilot study (NCT04009577, E2006-A001-312) was designed to assess pre-specified dosing approaches for directly transitioning from the sedative-hypnotic zolpidem (ZOL), a commonly prescribed sleep aid, to LEM. Methods This multicenter pilot study has enrolled subjects age ≥18 years with an insomnia diagnosis (DSM-5 criteria), who used ZOL (intermittently or frequently) as their only insomnia treatment. Following a 3-week Screening period, eligible subjects enter the Treatment Phase (2-week titration period: assigned to 1 of 3 treatment arms based on ZOL use during Screening), and then the Extension Phase (maintenance period up to 12 weeks). During both the Treatment and Extension Phases, the dose of LEM is flexible between 5 and 10 mg, depending on efficacy and tolerability. The primary endpoint is to evaluate the proportion of subjects taking ZOL who successfully transition to LEM (lemborexant 5 mg [LEM5] or lemborexant 10 mg [LEM10]) after 2 weeks of LEM treatment. Results Enrollment began July 15, 2019. It was initially projected that approximately 110 subjects would be screened to provide about 60 subjects for randomization across 3 treatment arms. Interim data will be presented (planned cutoff date Jan 08, 2020). Conclusion This pilot study will help inform on dosing guidance when transitioning a patient from a GABA-ergic drug to an orexin receptor antagonist. Support Eisai Inc.

Background Some, but not all, prior investigations suggest armodafinil may have utility as an adjunctive treatment in bipolar I depression. Methods Multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients aged 18 to 65 years experiencing a depressive episode despite maintenance therapy for bipolar I disorder. Patients were randomized to receive adjunctive armodafinil 150 mg/day or adjunctive placebo for 8 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline in 30-Item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology–Clinician-Rated (IDS-C30) total score at week 8. Safety and tolerability were monitored. Results Of 656 patients screened, 399 were randomized, of whom 308 (77 %) were taking a protocol-allowed mood stabilizer as monotherapy. The primary efficacy outcome did not reach statistical significance; however, several secondary efficacy outcomes demonstrated statistically significant advantages for adjunctive armodafinil (n = 197) over adjunctive placebo (n = 196), including Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness for depression (weeks 6, 8, and endpoint; all P

Venlafaxine is a clinically effective antidepressant. Caffeine is a metabolic probe for the quantitative measurement of CYP1A2 activity in vivo. This open-label study evaluated the effect of steady-state venlafaxine on CYP1A2-dependent metabolism, as measured by the pharmacokinetic disposition of caffeine, and urinary caffeine metabolite ratios (CMRs). Sixteen healthy subjects received 200 mg of caffeine orally before (Day 1) and after (Day 8) venlafaxine was titrated to steady-state (37. 5 mg every 12 hours on Days 2-4, then 75 mg every 12 hours on Days 5-8). Samples were collected before and for 24 hours after caffeine dosing for the determination of caffeine in plasma and 1,7-dimethylxanthine, 3,7-dimethylxanthine, 1,7-dimethyluric acid (17U), 1-methylxanthine (1X) and 1-methyluric acid (1U), and 5-acetylamino-6-amino-3-methyluracil (AAMU) in urine. Blood samples were obtained before venlafaxine doses on Days 7 and 8 (morning dose only) for the determination of trough venlafaxine and O-desmethylvenlafaxine levels. Venlafaxine did not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of caffeine and its metabolites. Plasma caffeine AUC was unchanged and remained within the bioequivalence criteria (90% confidence interval: 87.9%-102%) in the presence of venlafaxine. Urine metabolite data showed variable increases and decreases in the CMR [(AAMU + 1 U + 1X)/17U] for individual subjects. However, the mean CMR was altered by < 10% in the presence of venlafaxine. This in viva study demonstrated that venlafaxine did not alter the pharmacokinetic profile of caffeine and confirms in vitro data that venlafaxine does not inhibit CYP1A2 metabolism. Therefore, venlafaxine appears to have a relatively low potential for drug interactions based on CYP1A2 inhibition.

An open-label study evaluated the effect of steady-state venlafaxine on the single-dose pharmacokinetic profile of risperidone, a CYP2D6 substrate; its active metabolite, 9-hydroxyrisperidone; and the total active moiety (risperidone plus 9-hydroxyrisperidone). Thirty healthy subjects received a 1 mg oral dose of risperidone before and after venlafaxine dosing to steady state. No significant changes occurred between treatments in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for 9-hydroxyrisperidone or the total active moiety. However, venlafaxine weakly altered the pharmacokinetics of risperidone. Oral clearance decreased 38%, and the volume of distribution decreased 17%, resulting in a 32% increase in the AUC for risperidone. Renal clearance of 9-hydroxyrisperidone also decreased by 20% in the presence of venlafaxine. Safety profiles of both drugs were not altered. This study demonstrated that venlafaxine did not affect the pharmacokinetic profile of 9-hydroxyrisperidone or the total active moiety, although it weakly inhibited the metabolism of risperidone. These results show that venlafaxine is unlikely to be involved in a pharmacokinetic interaction with concomitant risperidone.

Psychotropic drug dosing regimens are often based on the pharmacokinetic elimination half-life of the compound. This implies that the pharmacokinetic half-life of the drug may be the critical or sole determinant of pharmacodynamic half-life. In the present study, we examined the safety and efficacy of once- versus twice-daily dosing regimens of the immediate-release formulation of venlafaxine, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake site blocker with a short elimination half-life.Forty-eight patients with a diagnosis of DSM-IV major depressive episode were randomly assigned to once-daily (N = 25) versus twice-daily (N = 23) venlafaxine. Venlafaxine was started at 37.5 mg daily with specified increments up to 225 mg daily. Efficacy was rated using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI).Twenty-one patients in each group completed 6 weeks of treatment. We observed a significant reduction in mean weekly HAM-D and MADRS scores at weeks 1 through 6 for both dosing groups (p.001). There were no statistically significant differences in mean HAM-D or MADRS scores between dosing groups at any time point. There was, however, a nonsignificant trend for a more rapid reduction in the mean HAM-D score at week 2 (p.06) and in the mean MADRS score at week 1 (p.07) and week 2 (p.09) in the b.i.d. dosing group. Similarly, there was a significant decrease in the CGI score at week 2 (p.02) in the b.i.d. dosing group. The rate of adverse events was similar between treatment groups; the most common adverse events were transient nausea and headaches.These results indicate that the immediate-release formulation of venlafaxine may be safe and effective in some patients when used in a once-daily dose regimen. Moreover, the present results suggest that the short elimination half-life of immediate-release venlafaxine should not be the sole determinant for multiple daily dosing and that antidepressant activity may be more profoundly influenced by a drug's pharmacodynamic half-life than by its pharmacokinetic half-life.

Two antidepressants, venlafaxine and fluoxetine, were evaluated in vivo for their effect on cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) activity, measured by the ratio of dextromethorphan, a sensitive CYP2D6 marker, to its metabolite dextrorphan (i.e., DM:DT) excreted in urine after DM coadministration. Twenty-eight healthy extensive metabolizers of CYP2D6 received either venlafaxine (37.5 mg bid for 7 days, then 75 mg bid until Day 28) or fluoxetine (20 mg daily for 28 days); 26 completed the study. Plasma concentrations of both drugs and their active metabolites were determined. DM:DTs were evaluated at baseline (Day 0), on Days 7 and 28 of dosing, and 2 weeks after drug discontinuation (Day 42). Steady-state drug and metabolite levels were achieved in both groups by Day 28. Mean DM:DTs for venlafaxine and fluoxetine differed statistically significantly (p < 0.001) on Days 7, 28, and 42. Comparisons of DM:DT as a percentage of baseline values showed that DM:DT increased 1.2-fold for venlafaxine and 9.1-fold for fluoxetine on Day 7 (p < 0.001) and increased 2.1-fold for venlafaxine and 17.1-fold for fluoxetine on Day 28 (p < 0.001). Inhibition of CYP2D6 metabolism persisted for 2 weeks after discontinuation of fluoxetine, unlike the case with venlafaxine. These in vivo results confirm in vitro data demonstrating significantly weaker inhibition of CYP2D6 with venlafaxine than with fluoxetine. This suggests that clinically significant interactions involving CYP2D6 inhibition could occur between fluoxetine and drugs metabolized by CYP2D6 but may be less likely to occur with venlafaxine.

DNR decisions on a psychiatric unit should reflect adequate staff CPR training and preparation, adequate medical consultation, a thorough assessment of the patient's competency, adequate surrogate decision-making if the patient is not competent, and appropriate milieu management and education. We wish to underscore the widely held principle that DNR status should not result in the abandonment of other aspects of treatment, whether medical or psychiatric. We believe there is a limited but appropriate role for DNR decisions on a psychiatric unit.

As more patients with AIDS and AIDS-related syndromes are admitted to psychiatric units, staffs must meet new diagnostic and therapeutic challenges while adapting to the unique stresses of treating these patients. The authors discuss several case vignettes to illustrate how the staff of a voluntary acute-stay psychiatric unit progressed over a two-year period from having difficulty treating AIDS patients within the usual therapeutic milieu to directly confronting the issues raised by the disease both among themselves and in the patient community. The authors believe that the staff's ability to cope with AIDS patients may have strongly influenced the patient community's ability to cope, and that clinical experience and educational programs were major contributors to the staff's adaptation. They conclude with several recommendations for psychiatric staffs beginning to treat AIDS patients.

Regarding the determination of resuscitation status (RS) and the writing of do-not-resuscitate orders, we compared the recent Presidential Guidelines with the attitudes and perceptions of 143 medical professionals in a major medical center. Seventy-four percent of respondents believed that RS was primarily determined by the physician. Only 1% believed the patient decides and a minority (40%) believed the patient should decide; 61% would want to decide for themselves if they were ill. Most respondents agreed that neither patients nor staff were well-informed about the individual patient's RS. When presented case vignettes requiring a decision about RS, the respondents frequently chose a RS contrary to the wishes of a competent patient. The findings of this survey point to the significant differences between the Presidential Commission's guidelines and the actual attitudes and perceived practices of clinicians.

As more individuals whose lives are affected by acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) begin to need psychiatric hospitalization, psychiatric staffs must be prepared to handle the strong feelings aroused by the disease. The authors present case vignettes of four patients with AIDS-related problems admitted to a voluntary acute-stay ward of a teaching hospital. They then discuss the largely indifferent reaction of the other ward patients to the AIDS-related patients, the tense and fearful reaction of the staff, and the subsequent interruption of the usual functioning of the therapeutic milieu. To develop an optimal management plan, the authors recommend attention to specific principles of patient and milieu assessment.