Pilot evaluation of a consumer wearable device to assess sleep in a clinical polysomnography trial of suvorexant for treating insomnia in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

The orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant was previously reported to significantly improve total sleep time (TST), by 28 min per night versus placebo after 4 weeks, in a sleep laboratory polysomnography (PSG) study of patients with Alzheimer's disease and insomnia. The study included an exploratory evaluation of a consumer-grade wearable "watch" device for assessing sleep that we report on here. Participants who met diagnostic criteria for both probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and insomnia were randomized to suvorexant 10-20 mg (N = 142) or placebo (N = 143) in a double-blind, 4-week trial. Patients were provided with a consumer-grade wearable watch device (Garmin vívosmart® HR) to be worn continuously. Overnight sleep laboratory PSG was performed on three nights: screening, baseline and Night 29 (last dose). Watch treatment effects were assessed by change-from-baseline in watch TST at Week 4 (average TST per night). We also analysed Night 29 data only, with watch data restricted to the PSG recording time. In the 193 participants included in the Week 4 watch analysis (suvorexant = 97, placebo = 96), the suvorexant-placebo difference in watch TST was 4 min (p = .622). In patients with usable data for both assessments at the baseline and Night 29 PSG (suvorexant = 57, placebo = 50), the watch overestimated TST compared to PSG (e.g., placebo baseline = 412 min for watch and 265 min for PSG) and underestimated change-from-baseline treatment effects: the suvorexant-placebo difference was 20 min for watch TST (p = .405) and 35 min for PSG TST (p = .057). These findings show that the watch was less sensitive than PSG for evaluating treatment effects on TST.

Polysomnographic assessment of suvorexant in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and insomnia: a randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the clinical profile of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant for treating insomnia in patients with mild-to-moderate probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, 4-week trial of suvorexant 10 mg (could be increased to 20 mg based on clinical response) or placebo in patients who met clinical diagnostic criteria for both probable AD dementia and insomnia. Sleep was assessed by overnight polysomnography in a sleep laboratory. The primary endpoint was change-from-baseline in polysomnography-derived total sleep time (TST) at week 4. RESULTS: Of 285 participants randomized (suvorexant, N = 142; placebo, N = 143), 277 (97%) completed the trial (suvorexant, N = 136; placebo, N = 141). At week 4, the model-based least squares mean improvement-from-baseline in TST was 73 minutes for suvorexant and 45 minutes for placebo; (difference = 28 minutes [95% confidence interval 11-45], p < 0.01). Somnolence was reported in 4.2% of suvorexant-treated patients and 1.4% of placebo-treated patients. DISCUSSION: Suvorexant improved TST in patients with probable AD dementia and insomnia.

Periodic benefit-risk assessment using Bayesian stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis.

Benefit-risk (BR) assessment is essential to ensure the best decisions are made for a medical product in the clinical development process, regulatory marketing authorization, post-market surveillance, and coverage and reimbursement decisions. One challenge of BR assessment in practice is that the benefit and risk profile may keep evolving while new evidence is accumulating. Regulators and the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) recommend performing periodic benefit-risk evaluation report (PBRER) through the product's lifecycle. In this paper, we propose a general statistical framework for periodic benefit-risk assessment, in which Bayesian meta-analysis and stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) will be combined to synthesize the accumulating evidence. The proposed approach allows us to compare the acceptability of different drugs dynamically and effectively and accounts for the uncertainty of clinical measurements and imprecise or incomplete preference information of decision makers. We apply our approaches to two real examples in a post-hoc way for illustration purpose. The proposed method may easily be modified for other pre and post market settings, and thus be an important complement to the current structured benefit-risk assessment (sBRA) framework to improve the transparent and consistency of the decision-making process.

A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by glimepiride and metformin.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease that often requires a patient to use multiple antihyperglycemic agents to achieve glycemic control with disease progression. Omarigliptin is a once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. The purpose of this trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to the treatment regimen of patients with T2D inadequately controlled by dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride. METHODS: Patients with T2D and HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤10.5% while on metformin (≥1500 mg/day) and glimepiride (≥4 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (N = 154) or placebo (N = 153) for 24 weeks. The primary objective was to assess whether omarigliptin was superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary objectives were to assess the effects of omarigliptin vs. placebo on FPG and the proportion of subjects attaining HbA1c goals of <7% and <6.5%. RESULTS: From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.5% (omarigliptin) and 8.6% (placebo), the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 was -0.67% in the omarigliptin group and -0.06% in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of -0.61% (-0.85, -0.38). Treatment with omarigliptin resulted in a significantly greater reduction in FPG relative to placebo (LS mean difference [95% CI] -0.9 mmol/L [-1.4, -0.4]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients achieving glycemic goals of <7.0% and <6.5% was higher in the omarigliptin group relative to the placebo group. The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuations were generally similar between treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 10.5% in the omarigliptin group and 8.5% in the placebo group. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin and placebo treatments were associated with LS mean changes in body weight of -0.1 kg and -0.9 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on dual therapy with metformin and glimepiride, compared with placebo, once-weekly omarigliptin provided greater improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01704261 , EudraCT Number: 2012-002612-10. Trial Registration Date: October 8, 2012.

Phase II Proof-of-Concept Trial of the Orexin Receptor Antagonist Filorexant (MK-6096) in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder.

Background: We evaluated the orexin receptor antagonist filorexant (MK-6096) for treatment augmentation in patients with major depressive disorder. Methods: We conducted a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase II, proof-of-concept study. Patients with major depressive disorder (partial responders to ongoing antidepressant therapy) were randomized 1:1 to once-daily oral filorexant 10 mg or matching placebo. Results: Due to enrollment challenges, the study was terminated early, resulting in insufficient statistical power to detect a prespecified treatment difference; of 326 patients planned, 129 (40%) were randomized and 128 took treatment. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of change from baseline to week 6 in Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score; the estimated treatment difference for filorexant-placebo was -0.7 (with negative values favoring filorexant) (P=.679). The most common adverse events were somnolence and suicidal ideation. Conclusions: The interpretation of the results is limited by the enrollment, which was less than originally planned, but the available data do not suggest efficacy of orexin receptor antagonism with filorexant for the treatment of depression. (Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01554176).

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly (q.w.) dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients with T2DM on a stable dose of metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/day) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.0-10.5% were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or matching placebo (n = 201 in both) for 24 weeks (primary timepoint) followed by an additional 80-week treatment period. RESULTS: At week 24, from a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c (primary end-point) was -0.54% (-0.69%, -0.40%) in the omarigliptin group and 0.00% (-0.14%, 0.15%) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.55% (-0.75%, -0.34%); p < .001. Between-group differences (LS mean 95% CI) for the secondary end-points of 2-h post-meal glucose and fasting plasma glucose (omarigliptin vs placebo) were -0.8 mmol/L (-1.4, -0.2) (p = .011) and -0.5 mmol/L (-0.9, -0.1) (p = .010), respectively. At week 24, the incidences of symptomatic hypoglycemia and subjects with one or more adverse event (AE), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to an AE were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. Over 104 weeks, omarigliptin treatment provided a clinically meaningful reduction in HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, adding omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. to metformin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 104 weeks and was generally welltolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Alertness and psychomotor performance effects of the histamine-3 inverse agonist MK-0249 in obstructive sleep apnea patients on continuous positive airway pressure therapy with excessive daytime sleepiness: a randomized adaptive crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the selective H3 receptor inverse agonist MK-0249 to treat excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). METHODS: In this three-period, double-blind, crossover study, 125 patients (100 men, 25 women; mean age, 48.6 years) with obstructive sleep apnea receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure therapy who had refractory EDS were randomized to 2 weeks each of daily MK-0249 (5, 8, 10, or 12 mg, adaptively assigned), modafinil 200 mg, and placebo. At baseline and after each treatment period, six maintenance of wakefulness tests (MWT) and Psychomotor Vigilance Tasks (PVT) were conducted at 2-h intervals, beginning 1h postdose (∼09:00). The Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGIS) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) also were assessed. The primary end point was MWT sleep latency averaged over the first four time points (MWT-early). RESULTS: MWT-early mean change from baseline sleep latency at week 2 was 1.2 min for placebo, 2.1 min for MK-0249 (top two doses pooled; P>.05 vs. placebo), and 5.9 min for modafinil (P < or = .001 vs. placebo). MK-0249 showed improvements vs placebo on secondary and exploratory end points of ESS, CGIS, PVT, and DSST. Insomnia adverse events (AEs) were greater for MK-0249 (combined doses, 17.5%) than for placebo (0.9%) or modafinil (1.8%). CONCLUSION: MK-0249 did not significantly affect MWT sleep latency. However, the pattern of improvement on subjective ratings and psychomotor performance end points suggested that MK-0249 was associated with changes in aspects of cognition and performance not captured by the MWT.

Lack of efficacy of L-759274, a novel neurokinin 1 (substance P) receptor antagonist, for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

Preclinical studies suggest that substance P acting at neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptors may be involved in stress responses and NK1 receptor antagonists show activity in tests of anxiety. These data raise the possibility that NK1 receptor antagonists could be potential anxiolytic treatments in humans. We evaluated this hypothesis clinically using the NK1 antagonist L-759274. This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept trial. Patients with generalized anxiety disorder were randomized 1:1:1 to 6 wk of treatment with 40 mg L-759274 (n = 73), 1-6 mg lorazepam (n = 69) or placebo (n = 71). Efficacy was assessed using the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA). A positron emission tomography (PET) study was also performed in 16 healthy subjects to determine the relationship between NK1 receptor occupancy and plasma levels of L-759274 to verify adequate target engagement by the doses tested during the clinical trial. No statistically significant difference in mean change from baseline HAMA score at 6 wk was seen for L-759274 vs. placebo [difference = 1.0 (95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.2 to 3.2), p = 0.359] whereas the lorazepam group did show a significant improvement vs. placebo (difference = -2.7, 95% CI -5.0 to -0.4, p = 0.020) and L-759274 (difference = 3.7, 95% CI 1.5-6.0, p = 0.001]. Results from the PET study indicated that the L-759274 dosing regimen used in the clinical trial likely provided high levels of NK1 receptor occupancy (>90%), supporting the view that it was an adequate proof-of-concept trial. The NK1 receptor antagonist L-759274 does not appear to be efficacious for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.

Long-term open-label safety study of rizatriptan acute treatment in pediatric migraineurs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety/tolerability of rizatriptan in the long-term acute treatment of migraine in pediatric patients. BACKGROUND: Acute migraine treatment options for children are limited. A recent single-attack trial demonstrated that rizatriptan is effective in eliminating migraine headache pain in this population. We evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of rizatriptan when used for intermittent acute treatment. METHODS: Open-label study in pediatric migraineurs ages 12-17 years. Patients weighing <40 kg received rizatriptan (orally disintegrating tablet) 5 mg, and those weighing ≥40 kg received 10 mg. Patients could treat up to 8 mild/moderate/severe migraine attacks per month for up to 12 months. One dose of study medication was allowed in a 24-hour period. RESULTS: A total of 674 patients were enrolled, and 606 patients were treated with study medication (N = 583 for 10 mg, N = 23 for 5 mg). The mean duration in the study was 292 days, and the mean number of doses of study medication taken was 20. Over the course of the study within 14 days post-any-dose, 66.0% (400) of the 606 treated patients had any adverse event, 2.3% (14) discontinued due to an adverse event, 2.6% (16) had a serious adverse event, and 23.4% (142) had a triptan-related adverse event. Of the 16 patients with serious adverse events within 14 days post-any-dose, the adverse events in 3 were considered drug-related; all 3 patient's adverse events were classified as serious only because they were associated with an overdose (use of >1 dose of study medication in a 24-hour period). The mean percentage of patient's attacks with pain freedom at 2-hours post-dose was 46.3%; this was relatively consistent over time (Months 1-3 = 43.7%, Months 4-6 = 51.9%, Months 7-9 = 49.9%, Months 10-12 = 49.5%). CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan was generally safe and well tolerated in the long-term acute treatment of migraine in pediatric patients aged 12-17 years and demonstrated a consistent treatment effect over time.

Randomized controlled study of telcagepant plus ibuprofen or acetaminophen in migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of telcagepant when co-administered with ibuprofen or acetaminophen for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Telcagepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist which is being evaluated for the acute treatment of migraine. Combining telcagepant with analgesics that have a different mechanism of action could produce greater efficacy. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomized to treat a moderate or severe migraine headache with either telcagepant 280 mg + ibuprofen 400 mg (N = 171), telcagepant 280 mg + acetaminophen 1000 mg (N = 171), telcagepant 280 mg (N =170), or placebo (N = 171). The primary efficacy endpoint was 2-hour pain freedom. The study had approximately 88% power to detect an additive effect of at least 15 percentage points (telcagepant combination vs telcagepant monotherapy) and 48% power to detect an additive effect of at least 10 percentage points. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse events and laboratory tests. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with 2-hour pain freedom were greater in each active treatment group compared to placebo (P < .001): telcagepant + ibuprofen = 35.2%, telcagepant + acetaminophen = 38.3%, telcagepant = 31.2%, placebo = 10.9%. No significant differences were seen for either of the combination groups vs telcagepant monotherapy, but both were numerically larger than telcagepant monotherapy. All the active treatments were generally well tolerated. The percentage of patients reporting any adverse event within 48 hours was higher in the active treatment groups than placebo: telcagepant + ibuprofen = 30.3%, telcagepant + acetaminophen = 31.6%, telcagepant = 24.8%, placebo = 18.2%. The most common adverse events reported by ≥ 4 patients in one or more of the treatment groups that included telcagepant were fatigue, nausea, dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, and tremor. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of telcagepant 280 mg with either ibuprofen 400 mg or acetaminophen 1000 mg did not show a statistically significant difference from telcagepant alone. Numerically greater treatment effects in the combination treatment groups over the telcagepant 280 mg monotherapy suggest that telcagepant combination treatments may merit further evaluation in studies powered to detect smaller additive benefits. (Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00758836).

Randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of taranabant for smoking cessation.

RATIONALE: It has been proposed that cannabinoid-1 receptor inverse agonists might be effective for smoking cessation. We evaluated this hypothesis with the cannabinoid-1 receptor inverse agonist taranabant. METHODS: Adults who smoked > or =10 cigarettes a day for >1 year and had an expired CO level of > or =10 ppm participated in a randomized, double-blind, 8-week, study of taranabant (N = 159) or placebo (N = 158). Taranabant was titrated from 2 mg once daily to 8 mg once daily. Patients received smoking cessation counseling. The primary efficacy endpoint was continuous abstinence, defined as no cigarettes assessed by daily patient self-report and verified by breath CO level (<10 ppm) and plasma cotinine test (<10 ng/ml), during the last 4 weeks of the 8-week treatment period. RESULTS: The percentage of patients achieving continuous abstinence was 7.5% for taranabant 2-8 mg and 6.3% for placebo (odds ratio = 1.2 [90% confidence interval (CI), 0.6, 2.5], P = 0.678). Change from baseline in body weight in the taranabant 2-8-mg group was -1.5 (90% CI, -1.8, -1.3) versus 0.6 kg (90% CI, 0.4, 0.9) in the placebo group. Compared to placebo, taranabant 2-8 mg was associated with an increased incidence of psychiatric-related adverse events (e.g., depression, 8.2% versus 2.5%, P = 0.048), gastrointestinal-related adverse events (e.g., nausea, 49.7% versus 19.0%, P < 0.001), and flushing/hot flash adverse events (10.7% versus 1.9%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Taranabant 2-8 mg did not improve smoking cessation and was associated with increased incidences of psychiatric-related, gastrointestinal-related, and flushing adverse events (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00109135).

Effect of gaboxadol on patient-reported measures of sleep and waking function in patients with Primary Insomnia: results from two randomized, controlled, 3-month studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gaboxadol in the treatment of Primary Insomnia. METHODS: Two studies were performed in patients 18 to 65 years of age with Primary Insomnia. After a 7-day single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with gaboxadol 15 mg (N = 310), 10 mg (N = 308), or placebo (N = 309) over 3 months in Study 1; and gaboxadol 15 mg (N = 304) or placebo (N = 301) over 12 months in Study 2. Treatment was administered at bedtime. The primary efficacy endpoints in each study were change from baseline in patient-reported total sleep time (sTST) and time to sleep onset (sTSO) at month 3. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse event reports. RESULTS: In Study 1, gaboxadol 15 mg significantly improved sTST (difference vs. placebo of 20.4 min, p < 0.01) and sTSO (difference vs. placebo of -9.8 min, p < 0.05) at 3 months, while gaboxadol 10 mg had no significant effects on these measures. In Study 2, gaboxadol 15 mg showed numerical superiority for improvements on sTST (difference vs. placebo of 14.5 min) and sTSO (difference vs. placebo of -4.9 min) at 3 months, but these differences were not significant. In both studies, there was evidence that the efficacy of gaboxadol was more pronounced in women than men. Gaboxadol was generally well tolerated over 3 months in Study 1, and over 12 months in Study 2. CONCLUSION: Gaboxadol 15 mg showed variable efficacy on measures of sleep duration and onset at 3 months in adult patients with Primary Insomnia in these studies and appeared to be more effective in women than men. Gaboxadol 10 mg was not effective in these studies. (Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT00103818, NCT00095069).