0360 Shifts in Daytime Functioning Items on the Insomnia Severity Scale with Lemborexant after 6 Months of Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) is a 7-item self-reported questionnaire evaluating perception of symptom severity included in Phase 3 studies of lemborexant (LEM), a competitive dual orexin receptor antagonist approved in several countries to treat adults with insomnia. The ISI total score, and items 4-7 for daytime function (DF), improved significantly with LEM treatment compared to placebo (PBO) as assessed at 1, 3 and 6 months. Here we report shifts in DF scores at 6 months depending on baseline severity. Methods Study 303 was a 12-month, randomized, double-blind PBO-controlled (first 6months; Treatment Period 1 [TP1]) phase 3 study in subjects (age ≥18y) with insomnia disorder. Subjects were randomized to PBO, LEM 5mg (LEM5) or 10mg (LEM10) for 6 months. ISI items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (no problem) to 4 (very severe problem). Daytime-related items include ratings on sleep satisfaction, extent symptoms are noticeable to others, cause worry/distress, or interferes with daily function. Data were analyzed by Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of general association vs placebo. Results Of the 949 subjects, 749 (78.9%) completed the ISI at baseline and end of TP1: PBO (258/318 [81.1%]; LEM5, 257/316 [81.3%]; LEM10, 234/315 [74.3%]). Baseline daytime ISI-total-score distribution was similar between groups; most had scores of 9-12 (66.7-68.6%). At the end of TP1, more subjects with baseline scores of 9-12 shifted to 0-4 with LEM5 (49.7%) and LEM10 (46.2%) than with PBO (26.6%). Similarly, more subjects with baseline scores of 13-16 shifted to 0-4 with LEM5 (39.1%) and LEM10 (46.3%) than with PBO (29.6%). An additional 28.1% and 25.9% of subjects with LEM5 or LEM10, respectively, with baseline scores of 13-16 shifted to scores of 9-12, compared with 31.5% of PBO. The overall shift distributions were significantly different, favoring both LEM groups (p< 0.01). Conclusion More LEM-treated subjects improved in daytime functioning as evidenced by the significantly large number of subjects whose scores moved into the lower categories (i.e., better sleep) compared with PBO subjects. These data support important improvements in daytime function that are evident even after 6 months of continuous LEM treatment. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".