Abuse Potential of Lemborexant, a Dual Orexin Receptor Antagonist, Compared With Zolpidem and Suvorexant in Recreational Sedative Users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lemborexant (LEM) is a dual orexin receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of insomnia in adults in multiple countries including the the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and several Asian countries. PROCEDURES: This was a randomized, single-dose, single-center, double-blind, active-control, 6-way crossover study to evaluate LEM abuse potential. The study assessed oral doses of LEM 10 mg (LEM10), 20 mg (LEM20), and 30 mg (LEM30) compared with placebo (PBO), zolpidem (ZOL) immediate release 30 mg, and suvorexant (SUV) 40 mg. Subjects were healthy, nondependent, recreational sedative users able to discriminate/like the effects of both SUV and ZOL from PBO during a qualification phase. RESULTS: Abuse potential endpoints were analyzed in qualified subjects who received and completed all treatments (n = 32). On the "at this moment" drug-liking visual analog scale (VAS), mean maximum (peak) effect (primary endpoint) values were 78.4, 80.5, and 83.6 for LEM10, LEM20, and LEM30, respectively, which were all significantly greater than PBO (57.8; all P > 0.05) but not different from SUV (76.1) or ZOL (78.3). Similarly, for secondary endpoints overall drug-liking VAS and take-drug-again VAS, mean maximum (peak) effect values for all LEM doses were significantly greater than PBO ( P > 0.05) but not different compared with ZOL or SUV. CONCLUSIONS: For all doses, LEM demonstrated abuse potential versus PBO and appeared to have a similar abuse potential profile to ZOL and SUV in this study population. Lemborexant was well tolerated. Lemborexant has been placed in Schedule IV, the same drug schedule as ZOL and SUV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".