Sleep medicine · 2011
Benefit and risk of modafinil in idiopathic hypersomnia vs. narcolepsy with cataplexy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lavault Sophie, Dauvilliers Yves, Drouot Xavier, Leu-Semenescu Smaranda, Golmard Jean-Louis, Lecendreux Michel, Franco Patricia, Arnulf Isabelle
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The benefit/risk ratio of modafinil was recently re-evaluated by the European Medicines Agency and was shown to be negative for idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) because of insufficient data.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit/risk ratio of modafinil in idiopathic hypersomnia (with and without long sleep time) vs. narcolepsy/cataplexy.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The benefit (Epworth sleepiness score, ESS; visual analog scale, patient and clinician opinions) and risks (habituation, adverse effects) of modafinil were studied in a consecutive clinical cohort of 104 IH patients (59 with long sleep time) and 126 patients with narcolepsy/cataplexy.
RESULTS: Modafinil was the first line treatment in 96-99% of patients. It produced a similar ESS change in IH patients and in narcolepsy patients (-2.6±5.1 vs. -3±5.1) and a similar benefit as estimated by the patients (6.9±2.7 vs. 6.5±2.5 on a visual analog scale) and clinicians. The ESS change was lower in IH patients with long sleep time than in those without. Sudden loss of efficacy and habituation were rare in both groups. Patients with IH reported similar but more frequent adverse effects with modafinil than narcolepsy patients: nervousness (14%), palpitations (13%), and headache (11%).
CONCLUSION: Modafinil has an excellent benefit/risk ratio in idiopathic hypersomnia, with or without long sleep time, similar to its effect on narcolepsy/cataplexy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit/risk ratio of modafinil in idiopathic hypersomnia (with and without long sleep time) vs. narcolepsy/cataplexy.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The benefit (Epworth sleepiness score, ESS; visual analog scale, patient and clinician opinions) and risks (habituation, adverse effects) of modafinil were studied in a consecutive clinical cohort of 104 IH patients (59 with long sleep time) and 126 patients with narcolepsy/cataplexy.
RESULTS: Modafinil was the first line treatment in 96-99% of patients. It produced a similar ESS change in IH patients and in narcolepsy patients (-2.6±5.1 vs. -3±5.1) and a similar benefit as estimated by the patients (6.9±2.7 vs. 6.5±2.5 on a visual analog scale) and clinicians. The ESS change was lower in IH patients with long sleep time than in those without. Sudden loss of efficacy and habituation were rare in both groups. Patients with IH reported similar but more frequent adverse effects with modafinil than narcolepsy patients: nervousness (14%), palpitations (13%), and headache (11%).
CONCLUSION: Modafinil has an excellent benefit/risk ratio in idiopathic hypersomnia, with or without long sleep time, similar to its effect on narcolepsy/cataplexy.