Treatment of elderly primary insomnia patients with EVT 201 improves sleep initiation, sleep maintenance, and daytime sleepiness

Sleep Medicine and Research Center, St. Luke's Hospital, 232 S. Woods Mill Road, Chesterfield, MO 63017, United States.
Sleep Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.15). 11/2009; 11(1):23-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2009.07.012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two doses of EVT 201, a partial positive allosteric modulator of the GABA(A) system, were evaluated in elderly primary insomnia patients with daytime sleepiness.
Participants were 149 elderly patients with DSM-IV primary insomnia including evidence of daytime sleepiness (53 males, 96 females; mean age 71.3yrs, range 65-86yrs). A randomized, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design was used to assess the hypnotic efficacy of EVT 201 1.5 and 2.5mg during seven consecutive nights. Polysomnography (PSG) was performed on nights 1, 6 and 7 of treatment. Daytime assessments on Day 8 included the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) and the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS). The primary endpoint was total sleep time (TST) and the key secondary endpoint was mean MSLT latency.
Compared to placebo, EVT 201 1.5 and 2.5mg increased TST (30.9, 56.4min, respectively; p=0.0001, p<0.0001); reduced wake after sleep onset (WASO; -15.2, -36.1min, respectively; p=0.014, p<0.0001); reduced latency to persistent sleep (LPS; -15.9, -19.9min, respectively; p=0.009, p=0.001). The 2.5mg dose also reduced WASO in hours 5-8 (-16.3min, p=0.001). Both doses also improved subjective sleep quality and usual subjective efficacy measures. A significantly longer mean MSLT latency was observed on Day 8 with both doses, compared to placebo (2min increase; p=0.03, both doses). The PVT, RAVLT, and POMS did not differ among treatment groups. No serious or unexpected treatment emergent adverse events were noted.
EVT 201 improved PSG measures of sleep onset and sleep maintenance and significantly reduced daytime physiological sleep tendency. These findings suggest that treatment of primary insomnia in older patients has the potential to improve daytime sleepiness as well as sleep.

1 Follower
6 Reads
  • Sleep Medicine 11/2009; 11(1):7-8. DOI:10.1016/j.sleep.2009.08.002 · 3.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sleep deprivation was found to exert complex effects on affective dimensions and modalities of pain perception both in healthy volunteers and patients with major depression. Considering multifaceted links between mood and pain regulation in patients with chronic somatoform pain, it is intriguing to study sleep deprivation effects for the first time in this group of patients. Twenty patients with a somatoform pain disorder according to ICD-10 diagnostic criteria were sleep-deprived for one night, followed by one recovery night. Clinical pain complaints (visual analog scale), detection- and pain thresholds (temperature and pressure) as well as mood states (Profile of Mood States) were assessed on the day prior to the experiment, on the day after sleep deprivation and on the day after recovery sleep. We found a discrepancy between significantly increased clinical pain complaints and unaltered experimental pain perception after sleep deprivation. Only the clinical pain complaints, but not the experimental pain thresholds were correlated with tiredness-associated symptoms. Total mood disturbances decreased and feelings of depression and anger improved significantly after sleep deprivation. However, these changes were not correlated with a change in clinical pain perception. We conclude that sleep deprivation may generally change the reagibility of the limbic system, but mood processing and pain processing may be affected in an opposite way reflecting neurobiological differences between emotional regulation and interoceptive pain processing.
    Psychiatry Research 07/2011; 195(3):134-43. DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2011.07.021 · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Catalysis Today 11/2011; 177(1):1-2. DOI:10.1016/j.cattod.2011.08.026 · 3.89 Impact Factor
Show more