Excessive daytime sleepiness is the core symptom of central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH) and can directly impair driving performance. Sleepiness is reflected in relative alterations in... Show moreExcessive daytime sleepiness is the core symptom of central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH) and can directly impair driving performance. Sleepiness is reflected in relative alterations in distal and proximal skin temperature. Therefore, we examined the predictive value of skin temperature on driving performance. Distal and proximal skin temperature and their gradient (DPG) were continuously measured in 44 participants with narcolepsy type 1, narcolepsy type 2 or idiopathic hypersomnia during a standardised 1-h driving test. Driving performance was defined as the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) per 5 km segment (equivalent to 3 min of driving). Distal and proximal skin temperature and DPG measurements were averaged over each segment and changes over segments were calculated. Mixed-effect model analyses showed a strong, quadratic association between proximal skin temperature and SDLP (p < 0.001) and a linear association between DPG and SDLP (p < 0.021). Proximal skin temperature changes over 3 to 15 min were predictive for SDLP. Moreover, SDLP increased over time (0.34 cm/segment, p < 0.001) and was higher in men than in women (3.50 cm, p = 0.012). We conclude that proximal skin temperature is a promising predictor for real-time assessment of driving performance in people with CDH. Show less
IntroductionExcessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can impair vigilance/attention. Solriamfetol, a dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor... Show moreIntroductionExcessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can impair vigilance/attention. Solriamfetol, a dopamine/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is approved to treat EDS associated with narcolepsy (75-150 mg/day) or OSA (37.5-150 mg/day). The analysis reported here explored the use of the Sleep, Activity, Fatigue, and Task Effectiveness (SAFTE) model (used in transport industries to model performance based on accumulated sleep and circadian variability) as a substitute for healthy controls using psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) data collected during clinical studies. MethodsData were analyzed from two phase 2 studies of solriamfetol in adults with OSA (NCT02806895, EudraCT 2015-003930-28) or narcolepsy (NCT02806908, EudraCT 2015-003931-36). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to solriamfetol 150 mg/day (3 days) followed by 300 mg/day (4 days), or placebo (7 days), then crossed over to the other treatment. Actual task effectiveness scores were calculated from average PVT inverse reaction time (pre-dose; 2 h post-dose; 6 h post-dose). Actigraphy-derived sleep intervals were used in SAFTE to determine modeled healthy control task effectiveness scores. ResultsIn participants with OSA (N = 31) on placebo or solriamfetol, actual and modeled healthy control task effectiveness did not differ at any time point. In participants with narcolepsy (N = 20) on placebo, actual task effectiveness at 2 h post-dose was lower than modeled healthy control task effectiveness (nominal P = 0.03), a difference not present with solriamfetol. There was no main effect of solriamfetol on actual or modeled healthy control task effectiveness across time points. ConclusionThis study represents a novel application of the SAFTE biomathematical model to approximate healthy controls in sleep disorder research and provides valuable lessons that may optimize future research. Future studies should perform a priori power analyses for model-tested outcomes and use sleep measures that capture sleep fragmentation characteristic of sleep disorders for sleep input (e.g., total sleep time rather than time in bed). Show less
Objective: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving performance in participants with narcolepsy. Methods: In this randomised,... Show moreObjective: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving performance in participants with narcolepsy. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, driving performance during a 1 h on-road driving test was assessed at 2 and 6 h post-dose following 7 days of treatment with solriamfetol (150 mg/day for 3 days, followed by 300 mg/day for 4 days) or placebo. The primary endpoint was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) at 2 h post-dose. Results:The study included 24 participants (54% male; mean age, 40 years); 22 had evaluable SDLP data. At 2 h post-dose, median SDLP was significantly lower (improved) with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.08 vs. 20.46 cm [median difference, -1.9 cm], p = 0.002). Four participants on solriamfetol and 7 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. At 6 h post-dose, median SDLP was not statistically significantly different with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.59 vs. 19.78 cm [median difference, -1.1 cm], p = 0.125). Three participants on solriamfetol and 10 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. Common adverse events (>= 5%) included headache, decreased appetite, and somnolence. Conclusions: Solriamfetol 300 mg/day improved on-the-road driving performance, at 2 h post-administration in participants with narcolepsy. Show less
ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving performance in participants with narcolepsy.MethodsIn this randomised,... Show moreObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving performance in participants with narcolepsy.MethodsIn this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, driving performance during a 1 h on-road driving test was assessed at 2 and 6 h post-dose following 7 days of treatment with solriamfetol (150 mg/day for 3 days, followed by 300 mg/day for 4 days) or placebo. The primary endpoint was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) at 2 h post-dose.ResultsThe study included 24 participants (54% male; mean age, 40 years); 22 had evaluable SDLP data. At 2 h post-dose, median SDLP was significantly lower (improved) with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.08 vs. 20.46 cm [median difference, −1.9 cm], p = 0.002). Four participants on solriamfetol and 7 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. At 6 h post-dose, median SDLP was not statistically significantly different with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.59 vs. 19.78 cm [median difference, −1.1 cm], p = 0.125). Three participants on solriamfetol and 10 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. Common adverse events (≥5%) included headache, decreased appetite, and somnolence.ConclusionsSolriamfetol 300 mg/day improved on-the-road driving performance, at 2 h post-administration in participants with narcolepsy. Show less
Objective: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with... Show moreObjective: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Methods: Eligible participants were aged 21-75 years with OSA and EDS (Maintenance of Wakefulness Test mean sleep latency <30 minutes and Epworth Sleepiness Scale score >= 10). Participants were randomised 1:1 to solriamfetol (150 mg/day [3 days], then 300 mg/day [4 days]) or placebo for 7 days, before crossover to the other treatment paradigm. On Day 7 of each period, standardised on-road driving tests occurred (2 and 6 hours postdose). Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) was the primary endpoint. Results: Solriamfetol significantly reduced SDLP at 2 (n = 34; least squares mean difference, -1.1 cm; 95% CI, -1.85, -0.32; p = 0.006) and 6 hours postdose (n = 32; least squares mean difference, -0.8 cm; 95% CI, -1.58, -0.03; p = 0.043). Two hours postdose, 4 placebo-treated and 1 solriamfetol-treated participants had incomplete driving tests; 6 hours postdose, 7 and 3 participants, respectively, had incomplete tests. Common treatment-emergent adverse events included headache, nausea, and insomnia. Conclusions: Solriamfetol 300 mg/day significantly improved on-the-road driving performance in participants with EDS associated with OSA. Show less
Patients with narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) are at increased risk of driving accidents. Both excessive daytime sleepiness, i.e. unwanted sleep episodes during the day, and disturbed... Show morePatients with narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) are at increased risk of driving accidents. Both excessive daytime sleepiness, i.e. unwanted sleep episodes during the day, and disturbed vigilance are core features of these disorders. We tested on-the-road driving performance of patients with narcolepsy or IH coming in for a routine driving fitness evaluation and examined: (1) correlations between driving performance and the Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) and Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT) as objective tests; (2) the predictive power of the MWT and SART for increased risk of impaired driving; (3) the best set of objective predictors for increased risk of impaired driving. Participants were 44 patients (aged 18-75 years) with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), type 2 (NT2) or IH. They completed the MWT, SART, PVT, a subjective sleepiness questionnaire, and a standardised on-the-road driving test. The standard deviation of the lateral position (SDLP) was used as outcome measure of driving performance. The MWT had low correlation with the SDLP (rho = -0.41 to -0.49, p < 0.01). The SART and PVT had low correlations with SDLP (rho = 0.30 and rho = 0.39, respectively, both p < 0.05). The predictive power of MWT for an increased risk of impaired driving was significant, but low (area under the curve = 0.273, p = 0.012), and non-significant for SART. We conclude that in our present group, none of the tests had adequate ability to predict impaired driving, questioning their use for clinical driving fitness evaluation in narcolepsy and IH. Real-time monitoring of sleepiness while driving seems more promising in these patients. Show less
Sluiszen, N.N.J.J.M. van der; Urbanus, B.; Lammers, G.J.; Overeem, S.; Ramaekers, J.G.; Vermeeren, A. 2020
IntroductionExcessive Daytime Sleepiness is a core symptom of narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia, which impairs driving performance. Adequate treatment improves daytime alertness, but it is... Show moreIntroductionExcessive Daytime Sleepiness is a core symptom of narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia, which impairs driving performance. Adequate treatment improves daytime alertness, but it is unclear whether driving performance completely normalizes. This study compares driving performance of patients with narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia receiving treatment to that of healthy controls.MethodsPatients diagnosed with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1, n = 33), narcolepsy type 2 (NT2, n = 7), or idiopathic hypersomnia (IH, n = 6) performed a standardized one-hour on-the-road driving test, measuring standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP).ResultsResults showed that mean SDLP in patients did not differ significantly from controls, but the 95%CI of the mean difference (+1.02 cm) was wide (-0.72 to +2.76 cm). Analysis of subgroups, however, showed that mean SDLP in NT1 patients was significantly increased by 1.90 cm as compared to controls, indicating impairment. Moreover, four NT1 patients requested to stop the test prematurely due to self-reported somnolence, and two NT1 patients were stopped by the driving instructor for similar complaints.ConclusionDriving performance of NT1 patients may still be impaired, despite receiving treatment. No conclusions can be drawn for NT2 and IH patients due to the low sample sizes of these subgroups. In clinical practice, determination of fitness to drive for these patients should be based on an individual assessment in which also coping strategies are taken into account. Show less
