Efficacy and Safety of Transitioning to Lemborexant from Z-drug, Suvorexant, and Ramelteon in Japanese Insomnia Patients: An Open-label, Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

For patients with chronic insomnia, conventional therapy may not always provide satisfactory efficacy and safety. Thus, switching to an alternative therapeutic agent can be explored. However, there is a lack of prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of such changes. This prospective, non-randomized, open-label, interventional, multicenter study assessed whether Japanese patients with chronic insomnia dissatisfied with treatment could transition directly to lemborexant (LEM) from four cohorts-non-benzodiazepine sedative-hypnotic (zolpidem, zopiclone, or eszopiclone) monotherapy, dual orexin receptor antagonist (suvorexant) monotherapy, suvorexant + benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), and melatonin receptor agonist (ramelteon) combination. We evaluated whether transitioning to LEM improved patient satisfaction based on efficacy and safety.

METHODS

The primary endpoint was the proportion of successful transitions to LEM at 2 weeks (titration phase end), defined as the proportion of patients on LEM by the end of the 2-week titration phase who were willing to continue on LEM during the maintenance phase (Weeks 2-14). Patient satisfaction and safety (the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]) were assessed at 14 weeks (end of titration and maintenance phases).

RESULTS

Among the 90 patients enrolled, 95.6% (95% confidence interval: 89.0-98.8%) successfully transitioned to LEM at 2 weeks. The proportions of patients who successfully continued on LEM were 97.8% and 82.2% at the end of the titration and maintenance phases (Weeks 2 and 14), respectively. The overall incidence of TEAEs was 47.8%; no serious TEAEs occurred. In all cohorts, the proportions of patients with positive responses were higher than the proportions with negative responses on the three scales of the Patient Global Impression-Insomnia version. During the maintenance phase, Insomnia Severity Index scores generally improved at Weeks 2, 6, and 14 of LEM transition.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct transition to LEM may be a valid treatment option for patients with insomnia who are dissatisfied with current treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04742699.

Reduced versus maximum tolerated methotrexate dose concomitant with adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (MIRACLE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of combination therapy with methotrexate and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is well established in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis; however, the optimal dose of methotrexate to administer with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor remains unclear. We aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of adalimumab combined with reduced methotrexate dose compared with the maximum tolerated methotrexate dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate monotherapy.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a disease duration of less than 2 years across 24 secondary or tertiary care hospitals across Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. At initiation, methotrexate was given orally and increased to the maximum tolerated dose by week 12. Patients who did not achieve remission on the basis of the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) at week 24 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive adalimumab (40 mg biweekly) combined with a continued maximum tolerated dose of methotrexate or adalimumab combined with a reduced dose of methotrexate. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of adalimumab plus reduced-dose methotrexate to adalimumab plus maximal-dose methotrexate based on SDAI remission at week 48, assessed in the modified full-analysis set with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -15%, based on a two-sided 90% CI. Adverse events were assessed in the safety analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03505008 and has been completed.

FINDINGS

From April 18, 2018, to June 2, 2020, from 323 patients screened, 300 were enrolled, and 291 patients were included in the full analysis set. The mean age was 57·7 years (SD 15·2), 217 (75%) were female, 74 (25%) were male, and all patients were of Asian ethnicity. The mean SDAI at study enrolment was 26·5 (SD 12·4). 52 patients discontinued the study before week 24 or at week 24 before randomisation. At week 24, 105 (36%) of 291 patients achieved remission and continued methotrexate monotherapy through week 48. 134 (46%) did not achieve remission at week 24 and were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab plus the maximum tolerated dose of methotrexate (n=68) or adalimumab plus reduced-dose methotrexate (n=66). Remission at week 48 was achieved in 25 (38%) of 66 and 27 (44%) of 61 patients, respectively, with an adjusted risk difference of 6·4% (90% CI -7·0 to 19·8), which met the non-inferiority margin of -15%. Adverse events after week 24 tended to be more frequent in the maximum tolerated dose group than in the reduced-dose group (24 [35%] vs 13 [20%], p=0·054). Between week 24 and 48, there were 14 serious adverse events (6 in the methotrexate monotherapy group, 5 in the adalimumab plus maximal-dose methotrexate, and 3 in the adalimumab plus reduced-dose methotrexate group), and no deaths.

INTERPRETATION

The MIRACLE study showed that the efficacy of adalimumab combined with reduced methotrexate dose was not inferior to that with the maximum tolerated methotrexate dose, with a tendency to a better safety profile.

FUNDING

Eisai.

Comparison of the treatment effectiveness between lemborexant and zolpidem tartrate extended-release for insomnia disorder subtypes defined based on polysomnographic findings

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Patients with chronic insomnia may respond differently to therapeutic modalities. This study examined differences in response of individuals with 2 insomnia phenotypes-short sleep duration (I-SSD; < 6 hours) and normal sleep duration (I-NSD; ≥ 6 hours) determined by polysomnography-to treatment with lemborexant and zolpidem tartrate extended-release 6.25 mg (zolpidem ER), compared with placebo.

METHODS

Study E2006-G000-304 (Study 304; SUNRISE-1; NCT02783729) was a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo, and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study comparing lemborexant 5 and 10 mg in individuals aged ≥ 55 years with insomnia disorder. In this analysis, changes in subjective (self-reported) variables based on sleep diaries and objective variables based on polysomnographs were assessed after 1-month administration of study drugs. Data from participants with I-SSD and I-NSD were compared.

RESULTS

In the I-SSD subgroup, both lemborexant doses provided significant benefit for sleep-onset latency (SOL), total sleep time (TST), and wake after sleep onset (WASO) vs placebo; zolpidem ER also provided significant benefit for TST and WASO, but not SOL, on both measures vs placebo. In the I-NSD subgroup, lemborexant and zolpidem ER provided significant benefit for TST and WASO vs placebo objectively but not subjectively; both doses of lemborexant provided significant benefit for SOL vs placebo subjectively, but not objectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both drugs, but lemborexant more consistently, showed subjective and objective benefits compared with placebo in participants with insomnia with objective short sleep duration. However, neither lemborexant nor zolpidem provided consistent benefits for participants with normal sleep duration on sleep-onset and sleep maintenance variables.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Lemborexant in Subjects 55 Years and Older With Insomnia Disorder (SUNRISE 1); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02783729; Identifier: NCT02783729.

CITATION

Inoue Y, Nishida M, Kubota N, et al. Comparison of the treatment effectiveness between lemborexant and zolpidem tartrate extended-release for insomnia disorder subtypes defined based on polysomnographic findings. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(3):519-528.

OP0062 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ADALIMUMAB WITH LOW AND HIGH DOSE-METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: THE RANDOMISED CONTROLLED MIRACLE STUDY

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease that causes not only joint pain but also bone destruction resulting in impairment of quality of life. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors have improved prognosis of patients with rheumatoid arthritis dramatically, especially in combination with methotrexate, however, the optimal dose of the concomitant methotrexate is unclear.

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in combination with reduced dose of methotrexate in patients with early RA with inadequate response to methotrexate.

Methods

The MIRACLE study was a multinational, randomized, open-label study in patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate conducted in Asia. It compared low dose and high dose methotrexate upon starting adalimumab. Methotrexate-naive patients with RA with a disease duration of less than two years started methotrexate at 6 to 8 mg/week and increased it to the maximum tolerable dose by week 12. Patients who have not achieved remission according to simplified disease activity index (SDAI) despite methotrexate ≥ 10 mg/week at week 24 were randomised to the maximum tolerable dose of methotrexate group (10 to 25 mg/week) or the reduced dose group (6 to 8 mg/week) and started to receive subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg every other week. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority in the achievement of SDAI remission at week 48 in the reduced dose group compared with the maximum tolerable dose group with a non-inferiority margin of -15% based on two-sided 90% confidence interval. (NCT03505008)

Results

A total of 300 patients were enrolled in the study. Among them, 291 started methotrexate and were included in the analysis. The mean age was 57.7±15.2 years, female was 74.6%, and the mean disease duration from the diagnosis of RA was 21.1±56.2 days. Anti-CCP antibody was positive in 211 (73.0%) and the mean SDAI at study enrollment was 26.5±12.4. At week 24, with the mean dose of methotrexate of 12.6±2.9 mg/week, 108 patients (37.1%) achieved remission according to SDAI and continued MTX monotherapy. 134 patients (46.0%) were randomised and started adalimumab with 68 patients in the maximum tolerable dose group and 66 patients in the reduced dose group. At week 48, the remission achievement rates were 38.4 % and 44.8 %, respectively, with the adjusted risk difference of the reduced dose group to the maximum tolerable dose group of 6.4% (-7.0% to 19.8%, 90% CI), which met the criterion for noninferiority. No significant difference was found in health assessment questionnaire disability index ≤0.5 (59.1% vs 62.0%, respectively, p=0.72) and in radiological remission rates (Δmodified total Sharp score ≤0.5, 66.3% vs 62.0 %, respectively, p=0.59). Adverse drug reactions tended to be more frequent in the maximum tolerable dose group than in the reduced dose group (22.1% vs 9.1%, respectively, p=0.06).

Conclusion

The MIRACLE randomised study demonstrated that, in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate, the efficacy of adalimumab with reduced dose of concomitant methotrexate was not inferior to that with maximum tolerable dose of methotrexate with better safety profile.

Disclosure of Interests

Hiroya Tamai Speakers bureau: Eisai, Grant/research support from: Eisai, Kei Ikeda Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gilead, Asahi-Kasei, Grant/research support from: Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Toshiaki Miyamoto: None declared, Hiroaki Taguchi: None declared, Chang-Fu Kuo: None declared, Kichul Shin: None declared, Shintaro Hirata Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen, Kyorin, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, UCB, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Consultant of: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Gilead, Ily Lilly, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Eisai, Otsuka, Sanofi, Shionogi, Chugai, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Eli Lilly, UCB, yutaka okano: None declared, Shinji Sato Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eisai, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eisai, Hidekata Yasuoka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Kissei, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, Teijin, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bayer, Glaxo Smith Kline, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Grant/research support from: Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, Daiichi-Sankyo, Chugai, Bristol-Myers, MSD, Astellas, In Ah Choi Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eisai, Sung-Hwan Park: None declared, Meng-Yu Weng Paid instructor for: Novartis, Eli Lilly, ChuGai, Abbvie, Consultant of: Abbvie, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Astellas, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Mochida, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Consultant of: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Kissei, Mochida, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, MBL, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Yun Jong Lee Grant/research support from: Yuhan, Tomonori Ishii Speakers bureau: Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, Eisai, Astellas, Jinhyun Kim: None declared, Hideto Kameda Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eisai, Toshihisa Kojima Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Eisai, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Han Joo Baek: None declared, Ping-Ning Hsu: None declared, Chun-Ming Huang Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Pfizer, Tien-Tsai Cheng Paid instructor for: Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Wan-Yu Sung: None declared, Takehiro Taninaga Shareholder of: Eisai.co.,Ltd., Employee of: Eisai.co.,Ltd., Masahiko Mori Shareholder of: Eisai.co.,Ltd., Employee of: Eisai.co.,Ltd., Hideaki Miyagishi Shareholder of: Eisai.co.,Ltd., Employee of: Eisai.co.,Ltd., Yasunori Sato Speakers bureau: Eisai Co., Ltd. Kowa Company, Ltd., Consultant of: MOCHIDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: Astellas, AbbVie, Ayumi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Nippon-kayaku, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Ayumi, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Sanofi, UCB, Yuko Kaneko Speakers bureau: Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Elli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, UCB.

Evidence-based insomnia treatment strategy using novel orexin antagonists: A review

Most conventional insomnia medications are gamma‐aminobutylic acid receptor agonists. However, physical dependence is a concern and one of the major limiting factors for long‐term treatment. The dual orexin receptor antagonists, suvorexant and lemborexant, were recently approved for treating chronic insomnia, giving a novel pharmacotherapeutic option. Because there are no comparative studies on these drugs, a network meta‐analysis was conducted, which is suitable for comparing interventions. According to this analysis, 5‐ and 10‐mg lemborexant were superior to 20‐mg suvorexant because of the greater improvement in initiating sleep after 1‐week administration. Furthermore, 5‐mg lemborexant (not 10 mg) and suvorexant were similarly well tolerated, without requiring discontinuation due to adverse events. We also overviewed the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of lemborexant and suvorexant that may support these clinical outcomes. When compared to suvorexant, lemborexant quickly binds to the orexin receptors. The time to reach the maximum concentration after multiple administrations is shorter for lemborexant than for suvorexant. Considering these results, we recommend 5‐mg lemborexant as an initial treatment for insomnia, followed by 10‐mg lemborexant or suvorexant.

A network meta‐analysis of the dual orexin receptor antagonists, suvorexant, and lemborexant, showed that 5‐ and 10‐mg lemborexant were superior to 20‐mg suvorexant, with greater improvement in sleep onset after 1 week of treatment. In addition, 5‐mg (but not 10‐mg) lemborexant and suvorexant were similarly well tolerated. We have overviewed the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of lemborexant and suvorexant that may support these clinical results, and recommended 5‐mg lemborexant as initial treatment for insomnia, followed by 10‐mg lemborexant or suvorexant.

AB0253 COMPARISON OF PHARMACODYNAMICS OF METHOTREXATE AS METHOTREXATE-POLYGLUTAMATES CONCENTRATIONS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS; INTERIM DATA EVALUATION OF MIRACLE STUDY CONDUCTED IN JAPAN, KOREA AND TAIWAN

Background:

Methotrexate (MTX) is the first-line therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The concentrations of MTX-polyglutamates (PG) in erythrocytes, an active form of MTX, are useful markers for the optimal usage of MTX in patients with RA. The concentrations of MTX-PG have been reported to be different between Japanese and Caucasians. However, the difference among Asian ethnicity remains unclear.

Objectives:

To examine MTX-PG concentrations in association with MTX dose during the first 24 weeks after the initiation of MTX for newly diagnosed RA patients in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

Methods:

MIRACLE study is a multicenter, open-label, randomized, 48 weeks interventional study conducted in Japan, Korea and Taiwan to evaluate non-inferiority of low dose to high dose of MTX as an add-on therapy to adalimumab in 300 patients with RA who do not achieve remission after 24 weeks MTX monotherapy in stipulated dosage. In the first 24 weeks, MTX was started at 6 to 8 mg/week for newly diagnosed RA patients, and promptly escalated to the maximum tolerable dose in 12 weeks in principle. This interim data evaluation was intended to investigate the differences among countries in the relationship between MTX dose, safety and MTX-PG concentrations in erythrocytes during the first 24 weeks. The efficacy of the treatment is not included at this point.

Results:

A total of 166 patients (106 in Japan, 35 in Korea, 25 in Taiwan) were included in this interim data. The age at treatment initiation was 57.2 years old on average and female was 79.5%. The time course changes in total and individual MTX-PG levels differed in the three countries. At 24 weeks, whereas the mean total MTX-PG concentrations were comparable (112.9 nmol/L in Japan, 104.4 nmol/L in Korea, and 115.7 nmol/L in Taiwan) with a dose of MTX of 12.3 mg/week, 14.1 mg/week, and 12.2 mg/week, respectively, the individual MTX-PG concentrations were different. The MTX-PG1 and MTX-PG2 concentrations were lower in Korea than Japan and Taiwan whereas MTX-PG3, MTX-PG4 and MTX-PG5 concentrations were the highest in Korea.

Conclusion:

The distribution of short-chain and long-chain MTX-PG concentrations were various among Asian countries despite similar dose of MTX administration: NCT03505008.

Disclosure of Interests:

Hiroya Tamai: None declared, Yuko Kaneko Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Hisamitsu, Jansen, Kissei, Kirin, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Grant/research support from: Sanofi, Hideto Kameda Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eisai, Masataka Kuwana Speakers bureau: Astellas, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Boehringer- Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Mochida, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Consultant of: Corbus, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Boehringer- Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, MBL, Nippon Shinyaku, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Yutaka Okano: None declared, Tomonori Ishii Speakers bureau: Chugai, Mitsubishi- Tanabe, Glaxo Smith Kline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, AbbVie, Eisai, Astellas, Kei Ikeda Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, BMS, Grant/research support from: Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Hiroaki Taguchi: None declared, Shinji Sato: None declared, Toshiaki Miyamoto: None declared, Shintaro Hirata Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Glaxo Smith Kline, Kissei, Pfizer, Sanofi, Mitsubishi- Tanabe, UCB, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Mitsubishi- Tanabe, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eisai, Gilead, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, UCB, Hidekata Yasuoka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Daiichi- Sankyo, Eisai, Kissei, Takeda, Mitsubishi- Tanabe, Chugai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, Teijin, Boehringer- Ingelheim, Bayer, Glaxo Smith Kline, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Consultant of: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Grant/research support from: Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, Daiichi-Sankyo, Chugai, Bristol-Myers, MSD, Astellas, Toshihisa Kojima Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Eisai, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Sung-Hwan Park: None declared, Kichul Shin: None declared, Han Joo Baek: None declared, Yun Jong Lee Grant/research support from: research fund, In Ah Choi Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eizai, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eizai, Jinhyun Kim: None declared, Ping-Ning Hsu: None declared, Chang-Fu Kuo: None declared, Chun-Ming Huang Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Pfizer, Meng-Yu Weng Consultant of: AbbVie, Wan-Yu Sung: None declared, Wen-Chan Tsai: None declared, Tien-Tsai Cheng Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Takehiro Taninaga Shareholder of: Eisai Co., Ltd., Employee of: Eisai Co., Ltd., Masahiko Mori Shareholder of: Eisai Co., Ltd., Employee of: Eisai Co., Ltd., Hideaki Miyagishi Employee of: Eisai Co., Ltd., Yasunori Sato: None declared, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: Astellas, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Ayumi, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Chugai, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, UCB, TaishoToyama, Sanofi–Aventis, Nipponkayaku, Taiho, Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grant/research support from: Asahikasei, Astellas, Abbvie, Daiichi Sankyo, Ayumi, Eisai, Takeda, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Chugai, Eli Lilly, UCB, Sanofi–Aventis, Nipponkayaku, Boehringer Ingelheim