Transitioning insomnia patients from zolpidem to lemborexant: A multicenter, open-label study evaluating a next-dose transition approach to insomnia pharmacotherapy.

Objective: Few clinical studies have assessed real-world abrupt transitioning between insomnia medications. This study assessed strategies for directly transitioning patients from zolpidem tartrate (ZOL) immediate/extended release to the dual orexin receptor antagonist, lemborexant (LEM). Methods: This randomized, open-label, multicenter study (Study 312; E2006-A001-312) enrolled 53 adults age ≥18 years with insomnia disorder and ≥1-month history of intermittent (3-4 nights/week) or frequent (≥5 nights/week) ZOL use. Subjects recorded their ZOL use in a 3-week Pretreatment Phase, followed by a 2-week Treatment Phase (TRT; Titration) during which ZOL was discontinued. Intermittent ZOL users transitioned to LEM 5 mg (LEM5), Cohort 1, and frequent ZOL users were randomized 1:1 to LEM5, Cohort 2A, or LEM 10 mg (LEM10), Cohort 2B. One dose adjustment was permitted during the TRT. Subjects completing the TRT could continue LEM in the 12-week Extension Phase (EXT). The primary outcome was proportion of subjects who successfully transitioned and remained on LEM at the end of the TRT. Results: Most subjects (43 [81.1 %]) successfully transitioned to LEM (9 [90 %], 17 [81.0 %], and 17 [77.3 %] in Cohorts 1, 2A, and 2B, respectively). By the end of the EXT, 66.7 % in Cohort 1 and 60.0 % in Cohort 2A up-titrated to LEM10, whereas 41.2 % in Cohort 2B down-titrated to LEM5; 61.0 % were receiving LEM10 at study end. At the end of the TRT, more subjects taking LEM reported that it helped them return to sleep after waking, compared with those taking ZOL (71.7 % vs. 49.1 %). There were no important differences between treatments regarding how subjects reported feeling as they fell asleep. Most of the treatment-emergent adverse events with LEM were mild in severity. Conclusions: Most subjects transitioned successfully to LEM from ZOL (intermittent or frequent use). LEM was well tolerated.

Long-term safety and efficacy of armodafinil in bipolar depression: A 6-month open-label extension study.

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.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, adjunctive study of armodafinil for bipolar I depression: implications of novel drug design and heterogeneity of concurrent bipolar maintenance treatments.

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 < 0.05), Global Assessment of Functioning (weeks 4, 8, and endpoint; all P < 0.02), IDS-C30 remitter rates (week 8 and endpoint; both P < 0.02), and mean change from baseline in IDS-C30 total score at week 7 (P < 0.05). Adjunctive armodafinil and adjunctive placebo were generally well tolerated. Although adjunctive armodafinil compared with adjunctive placebo yielded a higher headache rate (15 vs 8 %), it yielded similar (generally favorably low) rates of all-cause discontinuation (16 vs 16 %), adverse event discontinuation (4 vs 5 %), nausea (6 vs 4 %), ≥7 % weight gain (2 vs 5 %), anxiety (4 vs 3 %), insomnia (3 vs 2 %), sedation/somnolence (1 vs 1 %), and hypomania (0 vs <1 %). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, adjunctive armodafinil compared with adjunctive placebo in bipolar I depression did not separate in the primary efficacy outcome but demonstrated advantages for several secondary efficacy outcomes and was generally well tolerated. Additional research is warranted and necessary to better identify clinical predictors (e.g., atypical depressive symptoms, specific anti-manic/mood-stabilizing agents used) that would provide optimized, individualized therapeutics for bipolar depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01305408.