Safety and Efficacy of Lemborexant in Insomnia Patients: Results of a Postmarketing Observational Study of Dayvigo® Tablets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A prospective, postmarketing observational study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lemborexant (LEM) tablets in daily clinical practice in Japan. No other studies of a similar size have been conducted since the marketing approval of LEM, making this the first report of its kind. METHODS: Insomnia patients (n = 550) administered LEM (5-10 mg daily) for the first time were enrolled. Adverse events were collected for target events (somnolence, parasomnia, narcolepsy and associated conditions, suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior). Overall improvement of insomnia symptoms was assessed by the investigator based on the patient's complaint. Subjective sleep onset latency (sSOL) and subjective total sleep time (sTST) were investigated as sleep parameters. RESULTS: A case report form was obtained from 539 patients. The incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was 7.65% for somnolence, 1.76% for nightmares, 0.59% for abnormal dreams, and 0.20% for sleep paralysis. No serious ADRs or ADRs related to suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior were observed. The efficacy rate at the final evaluation was 80.83%. Decreased sSOL and increased sTST were observed as assessed starting from Week 8 of treatment. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the safety result was consistent with the safety profile described in the current package insert. Efficacy results also indicated that LEM is clinically useful.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".