MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293067425 · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsac079.451

0454 Response to Lemborexant in Older Subjects with Insomnia Disorder and Comorbid Pain at Baseline

2022· article· en· W4293067425 on OpenAlexaff
Alan Kaplan, Jocelyn Cheng, Masahiro Suzuki, Dinesh Kumar, Manoj Malhotra, Margaret Moline, Elizabeth Pappadopulos

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsTD Bank Group
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsomniaMedicineSleep onsetPolysomnographySleep onset latencySleep disorderPhysical therapyBedtimePlaceboEpworth Sleepiness ScaleAnesthesiaInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The reciprocal relationship between pain and poor sleep has been well established. Pain interferes with sleep, and insomnia increases pain sensitivity, thus reducing quality of life. Therefore, it is of clinical importance to evaluate whether a sleep-promoting drug such as the dual orexin receptor antagonist, lemborexant (LEM; approved in multiple countries to treat adults with insomnia) can improve sleep in older patients, in whom both sleep and ongoing pain are prevalent. Methods Study 304 (NCT02783729), was a 1-month, double-blind, PBO- and active-controlled study in subjects age ≥55y with insomnia (full analysis set [FAS]=1006). Those who also endorsed some/severe pain at baseline on the pain/discomfort dimension of the EuroQual-5 Dimension-3 Level scale (EQ-5D-3L; no problems/some problems/extreme problems) at baseline were eligible for these post-hoc analyses. Medical history of pain conditions and/or ongoing therapy were not required for eligibility and were not evaluated. Subjects were randomized to bedtime doses of placebo, LEM 5mg (LEM5),10mg (LEM10) or zolpidem tartrate extended release (not reported here). Changes from baseline (CFB) in objective sleep parameters assessed by polysomnography (latency to persistent sleep [LPS]; wake after sleep onset [WASO]) were analyzed by mixed-effect repeated measures analyses adjusted for relevant factors. Results Approximately 18% of the FAS reported some or extreme pain at baseline (PBO=55; LEM5=78; LEM10=50). For LPS, baseline median values (minutes) were 31.0, 29.4 and 42.1 for PBO, LEM5 and LEM10, respectively. Median CFB for LPS were larger and statistically significantly different for both LEM doses compared with PBO at the beginning of treatment (mean of Nights 1/2: +2.5; -8.4, -15.8; P<0.005); and were (mean of Nights 29/30: -7.1,-9.9, -9.0) at the end of treatment LEM5 (P=0.031), LEM10 (P=0.054). For WASO, baseline median values (minutes) were 101.0, 103.6 and 111.1 for PBO, LEM5 and LEM10, respectively. Median CFB for WASO were larger and statistically significantly different (P<0.001) for both LEM doses compared with PBO at the beginning (Nights 1/2; -1.5; -41.5, -64.4) and end of treatment (Nights 29/30; -1.1, -37.9, -52.5). Conclusion These data suggest that lemborexant can effectively treat insomnia in older adults with concomitant painful conditions. Support (If Any) Eisai Inc.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207