MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936374905 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsz067.610

0612 Evaluation of Abuse Potential of the Narcolepsy Medication Pitolisant

2019· article· en· W2936374905 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey M. Dayno, Catherine Scart‐Grès, Philippe de Robert, Jean‐Charles Schwartz, Beatrice Setnik

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhentermineNarcolepsyCrossover studyPlaceboStimulantMedicineAnesthesiaModafinilPharmacologyPsychiatryEpilepsyTopiramate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All medications currently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of narcolepsy are controlled substances. Pitolisant, a histamine 3 (H3)-receptor antagonist/inverse agonist, is approved in Europe for the treatment of narcolepsy with or without cataplexy in adults. This randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled, single-dummy, 4-sequence 4-way crossover study evaluated the abuse potential of single-dose pitolisant (35.6 mg [therapeutic dose] and 213.6 mg [supratherapeutic dose]) compared with the stimulant phentermine HCl (60 mg; a Schedule IV controlled substance) and placebo in nondependent recreational stimulant users. The primary endpoint was peak effect (Emax) for Drug Liking “at this moment” on a bipolar visual analogue scale (0=strong disliking, 100=strong liking). Key secondary endpoints included Overall Drug Liking and willingness to Take Drug Again. Between-treatment comparisons were analyzed using a mixed-effect model for a crossover study. After confirming their ability to discriminate phentermine (active control) from placebo, 43 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment sequences. For 38 participants who completed the study (73.7% male; 65.8% white; mean age, 33.3 years), mean (SE) Drug Liking Emax was 78.7 (2.8), 59.0 (2.1), 57.3 (2.1), and 56.1 (2.1), respectively, for phentermine, pitolisant 213.6 mg, pitolisant 35.6 mg, and placebo. Mean Drug Liking Emax was significantly greater for phentermine compared with placebo (P<0.0001), confirming study validity. For both doses of pitolisant, mean Drug Liking Emax was significantly lower compared with phentermine (P<0.0001) and similar to placebo. Additionally, for Overall Drug Liking and Take Drug Again, mean Emax scores were significantly lower for pitolisant (both doses) relative to phentermine (P<0.0001) and similar for pitolisant (both doses) compared with placebo. The most common adverse event with pitolisant was headache (pitolisant 35.6 mg, 15.0%; pitolisant 213.6 mg, 25.0%; placebo, 12.2%; phentermine, 10.3%). Pitolisant demonstrated significantly lower Drug Liking and willingness to Take Drug Again compared with phentermine and a profile similar to placebo; together with the lack of any abuse signal in preclinical studies, these findings suggest that pitolisant has minimal risk of abuse. Bioprojet Pharma and Harmony Biosciences, LLC.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207