Daridorexant for patients with chronic insomnia disorder: number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed.

OBJECTIVES: Appraise the evidence for daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg versus placebo when treating chronic insomnia disorder in terms of number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH). METHODS: NNT, NNH, and LHH were calculated from a 3-month pivotal Phase 3 study (N = 930; randomized 1:1:1 to daridorexant 50 mg, daridorexant 25 mg, or placebo once nightly). Wakefulness after sleep onset, latency to persistent sleep, self-reported total sleep time, Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), and Insomnia Severity Index were used for the NNT efficacy analysis. NNH safety analysis was performed using rates of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >1% of the participants in any arm. LHH was assessed for all NNT estimates, contrasting them with NNH estimates for somnolence, headache, and fatigue AEs. RESULTS: NNT estimates for daridorexant 50 mg versus placebo were <10 for clinically meaningful thresholds across all outcomes. NNT estimates for daridorexant 25 mg versus placebo were not as robust as those observed for daridorexant 50 mg, with many values exceeding 10. NNH estimates for daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg versus placebo did not show a statistically significant treatment difference except for falls, where NNH was negative for the daridorexant 50 mg group (-44 [95% CI -328; -21]; rate of falls was greater with placebo than for daridorexant 50 mg). All LHH ratios at Months 1 and 3 were >1 (except for daridorexant 25 mg for the IDSIQ alert/cognition domain), indicating that patients were more likely to respond to daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg than to experience an AE of somnolence, headache, or fatigue. CONCLUSION: Daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg have a favorable benefit-risk ratio over 3 months. Daridorexant 50 mg demonstrated more robust (lower) NNT estimates versus placebo than daridorexant 25 mg.

Daridorexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist, is a new treatment for chronic insomnia disorder. This analysis examined the effect and safety of daridorexant 50 and 25 mg, using data from a 3-month Phase 3 study (NCT03545191) to measure 'number needed to treat' (NNT) and 'number needed to harm' (NNH).NNT estimates how many patients need to be treated over a specific period to see one more beneficial response. Estimates versus placebo <10 indicate an effective treatment. Daridorexant 50 mg estimates were <10 for all objective and subjective measurements of insomnia assessed in this analysis, including evaluation of daytime functioning. NNT estimates for daridorexant 25 mg versus placebo were not as robust as daridorexant 50 mg, with values >10.NNH is calculated in the same way as NNT but estimates harmful outcomes rather than benefits. Estimates versus placebo >10 means the treatment is reasonably well tolerated.Using NNT and NNH, the 'likelihood to be helped or harmed' (LHH) ratio was calculated, determining how more likely a patient is to benefit versus experiencing harm from a treatment (LHH of >1 denotes a positive benefit­risk ratio). Both daridorexant doses had a favorable benefit­risk ratio over 3 months with LHH > 1.This analysis supports daridorexant 50 mg as the optimal dose to treat insomnia in adults, offering improved effectiveness compared with daridorexant 25 mg, with a similarly good safety profile.

The burden of untreated insomnia disorder in a sample of 1 million adults: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia disorder is a highly prevalent, significant public health concern associated with substantial and growing health burden. There are limited real-world data assessing the burden of insomnia disorder on daytime functioning and its association with comorbidities. The objective of this study was to leverage large-scale, real-world data to assess the burden of untreated insomnia disorder in terms of daytime impairment and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This United States medical claims database study compares patients diagnosed with insomnia disorder but not receiving treatment ('untreated insomnia' cohort) to patients without an insomnia disorder diagnosis and without treatment ('non-insomnia' cohort). International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision codes were used as a proxy to represent the three symptom domains (Sleepiness, Alert/Cognition, Mood) of the Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a newly developed and validated tool used in clinical studies to assess daytime functioning in insomnia disorder. Chronic Fatigue (R53.83) and Other Fatigue (R53.83), Somnolence (R40.0) and Disorientation (R41.0) were selected as categories representing one or more IDSIQ domains. Clinical outcomes included cardiovascular events, psychiatric disorders, cognitive impairment and metabolic disorders. RESULTS: Approximately 1 million patients were included (untreated insomnia: n = 139,959; non-insomnia: n = 836,975). Compared with the 'non-insomnia' cohort, the 'untreated insomnia' cohort was more likely to experience daytime impairments, with mean differences in occurrences per 100 patient-years for: (a) fatigue, at 27.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.81, 27.77, p < 0.01); (b) dizziness, at 4.66 (95% CI 4.40, 4.90, p < 0.01); (c) somnolence, at 4.18 (95% CI 3.94, 4.43, p < 0.01); and (d) disorientation, at 0.92 (95% CI 0.77, 1.06, p < 0.01). During the 1-year look-back period, patients in the 'untreated insomnia' cohort were also more likely to have been diagnosed with arterial hypertension (40.9% vs. 26.3%), psychiatric comorbidities (40.1% vs. 13.2%), anxiety (29.2% vs. 8.5%), depression (26.1% vs. 8.1%) or obesity (21.3% vs. 11.1%) compared with those in the 'non-insomnia' cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale study confirms the substantial burden of insomnia disorder on patients in a real-world setting, with significant daytime impairment and numerous comorbidities. This reinforces the need for timely insomnia disorder diagnosis and treatments that improve both sleep, as well as daytime functioning.

Wake Up America: National Survey of Patients' and Physicians' Views and Attitudes on Insomnia Care.

While both patients and physicians consider sleep to be important, sleep health may not receive appropriate consideration during patient visits with health care professionals (HCPs). We completed the first large-scale survey of people with trouble sleeping (PWTS) and physicians who treat insomnia to understand their perspectives and potential discrepancies between them. The Harris Poll conducted online surveys of adult PWTS and HCPs (primary care physicians [PCPs] and psychiatrists) in the United States from September to October 2021. Respondents included 1001 PWTS, 300 PCPs, and 152 psychiatrists. Most HCPs agreed that sleep is critical to good health, yet very few reported routinely conducting full sleep histories on their patients. Approximately 30% of PWTS reported that their PCP never asks about sleep; zero HCPs in this survey reported "never" inquiring. Few HCPs reported being "very satisfied" with current treatment options; 50% of PCPs reported their patients being satisfied. Two-thirds of PWTS did not believe current treatment options adequately improved their sleep. This survey provides evidence that both PWTS and physicians agreed on the importance of sleep, but that treatment is often perceived as ineffective. This survey identifies a need for HCPs to address insomnia management and treatment gaps.

The Associations between Insomnia Severity and Health Outcomes in the United States.

Little is known about the associations between insomnia severity, insomnia symptoms, and key health outcomes. Using 2020 United States National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data, we conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis to determine the associations between insomnia severity and a number of health outcomes germane to patients (health-related quality of life (HRQoL), employers and government (workplace productivity), and healthcare payers (healthcare resource utilization (HCRU)). The Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) questionnaire was used to evaluate overall insomnia severity. HRQoL was assessed using the physical and mental component summary scores of the Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) questionnaire, and health utility status was measured using the Short Form-6D (SF-6D) and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Workplace productivity was measured using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. After adjusting for confounders, greater insomnia severity was significantly associated with worsened quality of life, decreased productivity, and increased HCRU in an apparent linear fashion. These findings have important implications for future research, including the need for specific assessment of insomnia symptoms and their impact on key health outcomes.

Switching from Epoetin Alfa (Epogen®) to Epoetin Alfa-Epbx (RetacritTM) Using a Specified Dosing Algorithm: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Study in Adults on Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with anemia undergoing hemodialysis, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are typically dosed via precise algorithms. Using one such algorithm, we assessed the maintenance of hemoglobin levels in patients switched from epoetin alfa reference product (Epogen®) to epoetin alfa-epbx (RetacritTM; a biosimilar to US-licensed Epogen®/Procrit®). METHODS: This randomized, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) hemodialysis centers. Patients with anemia and chronic kidney disease undergoing maintenance hemodialysis and receiving routine intravenous (IV) Epogen® were randomized 1: 1 to switch to IV RetacritTM or continue standard-of-care (Epogen®) for 24 weeks, using analogous versions of the FMCNA ESA-dosing algorithm. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time patients' hemoglobin was 9-11 g/dL during weeks 17-24. RESULTS: Of 432 randomized patients, 418 received treatment (RetacritTM, n = 212; standard-of-care, n = 206) and comprised the full analysis set. A similar proportion of patients discontinued from each arm. The proportion of time patients' hemoglobin was within the target range was 61.9% (95% CI 57.5-66.2) in the RetacritTM arm and 63.3% (95% CI 58.7-67.7) in the standard-of-care arm. The difference in proportions between treatment arms was -1.4% (95% CI -7.6 to 4.9), and the lower bound of the confidence interval was within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -12.5%. There was no statistically significant difference between arms in the mean change from baseline in the weekly mean ESA dose during weeks 17-24, and no clinically relevant differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to RetacritTM was non-inferior to continuing -Epogen® in maintaining hemoglobin levels in patients receiving hemodialysis, when both ESAs were dosed using a specified algorithm (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504294).