MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127258757 · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2021.01.048

Long-term effectiveness and safety of lemborexant in adults with insomnia disorder: results from a phase 3 randomized clinical trial

2021· article· en· W3127258757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jane Yardley, Mikko Kärppä, Yuichi Inoue, Kate Pinner, Carlos Perdomo, Kohei Ishikawa, Gleb Filippov, Naoki Kubota, Margaret Moline

Bibliographic record

VenueSleep Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisai IncorporatedEisai
KeywordsInsomniaRandomized controlled trialTerm (time)MedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Lemborexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist approved in the United States, Japan, and Canada for the treatment of insomnia in adults. We report effectiveness and safety outcomes in subjects with insomnia who received up to twelve months of continuous lemborexant treatment in Study E2006-G000-303 (Study 303; SUNRISE-2). PATIENTS/METHODS: Study 303 was a twelve-month, global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 3 study divided into two treatment periods. In Treatment Period 1 (first six months), subjects (n = 949, Full Analysis Set) were randomized to daily placebo, lemborexant 5 mg (LEM5) or lemborexant 10 mg (LEM10). In Treatment Period 2 (second six months), placebo subjects were rerandomized to LEM5 or LEM10, and subjects randomized to lemborexant continued their assigned treatment (LEM5, n = 251; LEM10, n = 226). Sleep onset and sleep maintenance endpoints were analyzed from daily electronic sleep diary data. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored. RESULTS: For all sleep parameters, the significant benefits observed with LEM5 and LEM10 versus placebo over six months were maintained at twelve months in subjects who received twelve continuous months of treatment. There was no evidence of rebound insomnia or withdrawal in either lemborexant group following treatment discontinuation. Over twelve months of lemborexant treatment, most TEAEs were mild/moderate; the most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, somnolence and headache. CONCLUSIONS: LEM5 and LEM10 had significant benefit on sleep onset and sleep maintenance compared with placebo, and importantly, lemborexant effectiveness persisted at twelve months, suggesting that lemborexant may provide long-term benefits for subjects with insomnia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02952820; ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu, EudraCT Number 2015-001463-39.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations87
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSleep MedicineSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207