Orexin receptor antagonism, a new sleep-enabling paradigm: a proof-of-concept clinical trial.

The orexin system is a key regulator of sleep and wakefulness. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study, 161 primary insomnia patients received either the dual orexin receptor antagonist almorexant, at 400, 200, 100, or 50 mg in consecutive stages, or placebo on treatment nights at 1-week intervals. The primary end point was sleep efficiency (SE) measured by polysomnography; secondary end points were objective latency to persistent sleep (LPS), wake after sleep onset (WASO), safety, and tolerability. Dose-dependent almorexant effects were observed on SE , LPS , and WASO . SE improved significantly after almorexant 400 mg vs. placebo (mean treatment effect 14.4%; P < 0.001). LPS (­18 min (P = 0.02)) and WASO (­54 min (P < 0.001)) decreased significantly at 400 mg vs. placebo. Adverse-event incidence was dose-related. Almorexant consistently and dose-dependently improved sleep variables. The orexin system may offer a new treatment approach for primary insomnia.

Orexin receptor antagonism, a new sleep-promoting paradigm: an ascending single-dose study with almorexant.

Almorexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist potentially representing a new class of sleep-promoting compounds, was administered in an ascending single-dose study to evaluate tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. Seventy healthy male subjects were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled study. Each dose level (1-1,000 mg) was investigated in a separate group of 10 subjects (6 on almorexant, 2 on placebo, 2 on zolpidem 10 mg). Almorexant was well tolerated with no signs of cataplexy. Peak plasma concentration (C(max)) was quickly attained (median time to maximum concentration (t(max)) ranged from 0.7 to 2.3 h), and plasma concentrations subsequently decreased quickly to ~20% of C(max) over the course of 8 h. Vigilance, alertness, and visuomotor and motor coordination were reduced following daytime administration of zolpidem or almorexant at doses of > or =400 mg. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling suggested that doses of ~500 mg almorexant and 10 mg zolpidem are equivalent with respect to subjectively assessed alertness.

Treatment of patients with mildly symptomatic pulmonary arterial hypertension with bosentan (EARLY study): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been mainly studied in patients with advanced disease (WHO functional class [FC] III and IV). This study was designed to assess the effect of the dual endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan in patients with WHO FC II pulmonary arterial hypertension. METHODS: Patients with WHO FC II pulmonary arterial hypertension aged 12 years or over with 6-min walk distance of less than 80% of the normal predicted value or less than 500 m associated with a Borg dyspnoea index of 2 or greater were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. 185 patients were randomly assigned to receive bosentan (n=93) or placebo (n=92) for the 6-month double-blind treatment period via a centralised integrated voice recognition system. Primary endpoints were pulmonary vascular resistance at month 6 expressed as percentage of baseline and change from baseline to month 6 in 6-min walk distance. Analyses of the primary endpoints were done with all randomised patients who had a valid baseline assessment and an assessment or an imputed value for month 6. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00091715. FINDINGS: Analyses were done with 168 patients (80 in the bosentan group, 88 in the placebo group) for pulmonary vascular resistance and with 177 (86 and 91) for 6-min walking distance. At month 6, geometric mean pulmonary vascular resistance was 83.2% (95% CI 73.8-93.7) of the baseline value in the bosentan group and 107.5% (97.6-118.4) of the baseline value in the placebo group (treatment effect -22.6%, 95% CI -33.5 to -10.0; p<0.0001). Mean 6-min walk distance increased from baseline in the bosentan group (11.2 m, 95% CI -4.6 to 27.0) and decreased in the placebo group (-7.9 m, -24.3 to 8.5), with a mean treatment effect of 19.1 m (95% CI 3.6-41.8; p=0.0758). 12 (13%) patients in the bosentan group and eight (9%) in the placebo group reported serious adverse events, the most common of which were syncope in the bosentan group and right ventricular failure in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Bosentan treatment could be beneficial for patients with WHO FC II pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Family study of epilepsy in first degree relatives: data from the Italian Episcreen Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the family history of epilepsy in first degree relatives of probands with epilepsy. METHODS: A sample of 10787 patients with epilepsy with complete information about first degree relatives (parents, siblings and offspring) was selected from the database of the Episcreen Project, the largest Italian observational study on epilepsy. Family history was assessed by: (1) prevalence estimates of epilepsy among proband's relatives, (2) modified cumulative risks (MCR), adjusted using proband's age as censoring time in life tables, (3) standardised morbidity ratios (SMR), using a sub-group of symptomatic epilepsies as control group. RESULTS: Patients (9.1%) had a family history of epilepsy. The overall prevalence of epilepsy among first degree relatives was 2.6%. Idiopathic generalised epilepsies had the highest prevalence (5.3%). Cryptogenetic epilepsies had a lower prevalence (2.1%) than idiopathic epilepsies, but higher then symptomatic epilepsies (1.5%), both in generalised and focal forms (3.8% vs. 2.0% and 1.8% vs. 1.3%). A similar tendency was detected using MCR and SMR, with the higher values of risks/ratios for idiopathic and generalised epilepsies. Probands with idiopathic generalised epilepsies were highly concordant with respect to their relatives' type of epilepsy. Considering other strata factors, risks were higher in proband's epilepsies with an onset less then 14 years of age, while sex played no definite role in differentiating the family history. CONCLUSIONS: The Episcreen model permits a variety of stratification factors to measure family risk, including age at onset, epilepsy localisation and aetiology with a large sample of more than 10,000 probands and 1065/40,544 relatives affected and classified.