Alternative diagnostic criteria for idiopathic hypersomnia: A 32-hour protocol

Guidelines for the assessment and management of residual sleepiness in obstructive apnea-hypopnea syndrome: Endorsed by the French Sleep Research and Medicine Society (SFRMS) and the French Speaking Society of Respiratory Diseases (SPLF)

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is frequent among patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) and can persist despite the optimal correction of respiratory events (apnea, hypopnea and respiratory efforts), using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or mandibular advancement device. Symptoms like apathy and fatigue may be mistaken for EDS. In addition, EDS has multi-factorial origin, which makes its evaluation complex. The marketing authorization [Autorisation de Mise sur le Marché (AMM)] for two wake-promoting agents (solriamfetol and pitolisant) raises several practical issues for clinicians. This consensus paper presents recommendations of good clinical practice to identify and evaluate EDS in this context, and to manage and follow-up the patients. It was conducted under the mandate of the French Societies for sleep medicine and for pneumology [Société Française de Recherche et de Médecine du Sommeil (SFRMS) and Société de Pneumologie de Langue Française (SPLF)]. A management algorithm is suggested, as well as a list of conditions during which the patient should be referred to a sleep center or a sleep specialist. The benefit/risk balance of a wake-promoting drug in residual EDS in OSAHS patients must be regularly reevaluated, especially in elderly patients with increased cardiovascular and psychiatric disorders risks. This consensus is based on the scientific knowledge at the time of the publication and may be revised according to their evolution.

Long sleep time and excessive need for sleep: State of the art and perspectives

The mechanisms underlying the individual need for sleep are unclear. Sleep duration is indeed influenced by multiple factors, such as genetic background, circadian and homeostatic processes, environmental factors, and sometimes transient disturbances such as infections. In some cases, the need for sleep dramatically and chronically increases, inducing a daily-life disability. This "excessive need for sleep" (ENS) was recently proposed and defined in a European Position Paper as a dimension of the hypersomnolence spectrum, "hypersomnia" being the objectified complaint of ENS. The most severe form of ENS has been described in Idiopathic Hypersomnia, a rare neurological disorder, but this disabling symptom can be also found in other hypersomnolence conditions. Because ENS has been defined recently, it remains a symptom poorly investigated and understood. However, protocols of long-term polysomnography recordings have been reported by expert centers in the last decades and open the way to a better understanding of ENS through a neurophysiological approach. In this narrative review, we will 1) present data related to the physiological and pathological variability of sleep duration and their mechanisms, 2) describe the published long-term polysomnography recording protocols, and 3) describe current neurophysiological tools to study sleep microstructure and discuss perspectives for a better understanding of ENS.

From physiological awakening to pathological sleep inertia: Neurophysiological and behavioural characteristics of the sleep-to-wake transition

Sleep inertia refers to the transient physiological state of hypoarousal upon awakening, associated with various degrees of impaired neurobehavioral performance, confusion, a desire to return to sleep and often a negative emotional state. Scalp and intracranial electro-encephalography as well as functional imaging studies have provided evidence that the sleep inertia phenomenon is underpinned by an heterogenous cerebral state mixing local sleep and local wake patterns of activity, at the neuronal and network levels. Sleep inertia is modulated by homeostasis and circadian processes, sleep stage upon awakening, and individual factors; this translates into a huge variability in its intensity even under physiological conditions. In sleep disorders, especially in hypersomnolence disorders such as idiopathic hypersomnia, sleep inertia may be a daily, serious and long-lasting symptom leading to severe impairment. To date, few tools have been developed to assess sleep inertia in clinical practice. They include mainly questionnaires and behavioral tests such as the psychomotor vigilance task. Only one neurophysiological protocol has been evaluated in hypersomnia, the forced awakening test which is based on an event-related potentials paradigm upon awakening. This contrasts with the major functional consequences of sleep inertia and its potentially dangerous consequences in subjects required to perform safety-critical tasks soon after awakening. There is a great need to identify reproducible biomarkers correlated with sleep inertia-associated cognitive and behavioral impairment. These biomarkers will aim at better understanding and measuring sleep inertia in physiological and pathological conditions, as well as objectively evaluating wake-promoting treatments or non-pharmacological countermeasures to reduce this phenomenon.

Association between idiopathic hypersomnia and a genetic variant in the PER3 gene

We aim to identify genetic markers associated with idiopathic hypersomnia, a disabling orphan central nervous system disorder of hypersomnolence that is still poorly understood. In our study, DNA was extracted from 79 unrelated patients diagnosed with idiopathic hypersomnia with long sleep time at the National Reference Center for Narcolepsy-France according to very stringent diagnostic criteria. Whole exome sequencing on the first 30 patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (25 females and 5 males) allowed the single nucleotide variants to be compared with a control population of 574 healthy subjects from the French Exome project database. We focused on the identification of genetic variants among 182 genes related to the regulation of sleep and circadian rhythm. Candidate variants obtained by exome sequencing analysis were then validated in a second sample of 49 patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (37 females and 12 males). Our study characterised seven variants from six genes significantly associated with idiopathic hypersomnia compared with controls. A targeted sequencing analysis of these seven variants on 49 other patients with idiopathic hypersomnia confirmed the relative over-representation of the A➔C variant of rs2859390, located in a potential splicing-site of PER3 gene. Our findings support a genetic predisposition and identify pathways involved in the pathogeny of idiopathic hypersomnia. A variant of the PER3 gene may predispose to idiopathic hypersomnia with long sleep time.

Role of Daytime Continuous Polysomnography in the Diagnosis of Pediatric Narcolepsy Type 1

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) is still largely underdiagnosed or diagnosed too late in children. Difficulties in obtaining rapid and reliable diagnostic evaluations of the condition in clinical practice partially explain this problem. Predictors of NT1 include cataplexy and sleep-onset REM periods (SOREMPs), documented during nocturnal polysomnography (N-PSG) or through the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), although low CSF hypocretin-1 (CSF hcrt-1) is the definitive biological disease marker. Obtaining reliable MSLT results is not always feasible in children; therefore, this study aimed to validate daytime continuous polysomnography (D-PSG) as an alternative diagnostic tool.

METHODS

Two hundred consecutive patients aged younger than 18 years (112 with NT1; 25 with other hypersomnias, including narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia; and 63 with subjective excessive daytime sleepiness) were randomly split into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 133) for the identification of diagnostic markers and group 2 (n = 67) for the validation of the detected markers. The D-PSG data collected included the number of spontaneous naps, total sleep time, and the number of daytime SOREMPs (d-SOREMP). D-PSG data were tested against CSF hcrt-1 deficiency (NT1 diagnosis) as the gold standard using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in group 1. ROC diagnostic performances of single and combined D-PSG parameters were tested in group 1 and validated in group 2.

RESULTS

In group 1, the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.96) for d-SOREMPs, 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.89) for the number of spontaneous naps, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.60-0.79) for total sleep time. A d-SOREMP count ≥1 (sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 72%), coupled with a diurnal total sleep time above 60 minutes (sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 91%), identified NT1 in group 1 with high reliability (area under the ROC curve of 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.97). These results were confirmed in the validation group with an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.97).

DISCUSSION

D-PSG recording is an easily performed, cost-effective, and reliable tool for identifying NT1 in children. Further studies should confirm its validity with home D-PSG monitoring. These alternative procedures could be used to confirm NT1 diagnosis and curtail diagnostic delay.

A series of 7 cases of patients with narcolepsy with hypocretin deficiency without the HLA DQB1*06:02 allele

STUDY OBJECTIVES

We report data collected from 2 reference European sleep centers on a series of patients with narcolepsy with hypocretin-1 deficiency and absence of the human leukocyte antigens (HLA) DQB1*06:02 allele.

METHODS

Clinical data, HLA DQ markers, and cerebrospinal fluid assessments were collected retrospectively from Caucasian patients with a diagnosis of narcolepsy type 1 with cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 deficiency (< 110 pg/ml) and absence of the HLA DQB1*06:02 allele, with follow-up with at least 1 visit within the last 4 years, consecutively admitted to 2 European sleep centers (Lugano, Switzerland and Montpellier, France).

RESULTS

Seven patients (3 of 29 patients in Lugano and 4 of 328 in Montpellier) were diagnosed with narcolepsy with hypocretin-1 deficiency and absence of HLA DQB1*06:02 (ie, 2% of patients with narcolepsy type 1). Regarding the HLA-DQB1 genotyping, 4 cases were positive for HLA DQB1*03:01, 1 for DQB1*03:02, and 3 for DQB1*02:01. Three patients had atypical cataplexy and 1 had no cataplexy. Only 2 patients had both a mean sleep latency of less than 8 minutes and more than 2 sleep onset rapid eye movement periods on the Multiple Sleep Latency Test, indicative of a less severe condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Although rare, this series of 7 cases confirms that hypocretin-deficient narcolepsy should not be excluded in the absence of HLA DQB1*06:02, especially if patients are carriers of other high-risk HLA-DQB1 alleles (DQB1*03:01, *03:02, *02:01). These data support the hypothesis that narcolepsy type 1 is a wider disease spectrum linked to the loss of hypocretin peptide.

CITATION

Miano S, Barateau L, De Pieri M, et al. A series of 7 cases of patients with narcolepsy with hypocretin deficiency without the HLA DQB1*06:02 allele. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(12):2053-2057.

Are unrefreshing naps associated with nocturnal sleep architecture specificities in idiopathic hypersomnia?

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Unrefreshing naps are supportive clinical features of idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) and are reported by more than 50% of IH patients. They are, however, not mandatory for the diagnosis, and their pathophysiological nature is not understood. This study aimed at verifying whether IH patients with and without unrefreshing naps constitute two subtypes of IH based on their demographic/clinical characteristics, and sleep architecture.

METHODS

One hundred twelve IH patients underwent a polysomnography (PSG) followed by a multiple sleep latency test (MSLT). They completed questionnaires on excessive daytime sleepiness, mood, and sleep quality. They were met by sleep medicine physicians who conducted a semi-structured clinical interview and questioned them on refreshing aspects of their naps. Patients who reported unrefreshing naps were compared to patients reporting refreshing naps on questionnaires, MSLT and PSG variables, with age as a covariable. As sensitivity analyses, we performed the same comparisons in participants presenting objective markers of IH and those diagnosed with IH based only on clinical judgment (subjective IH), separately.

RESULTS

In the whole sample, 61% of patients reported unrefreshing naps. These participants had less awakenings, a lower percentage of N1 sleep, less sleep stage transitions, and a higher percentage of REM sleep on the nighttime PSG compared to the refreshing naps subgroup. When subjective and objective IH patients were tested separately, more group differences were observed on PSG for subjective IH patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with unrefreshing naps have less fragmented sleep compared to those with refreshing naps. Future studies should investigate whether this group difference indicates a weaker arousal drive.

Idiopathic hypersomnia and Kleine-Levin syndrome

Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) and Kleine-Levin syndrome (KLS) are rare disorders of central hypersomnolence of unknown cause, affecting young people. However, increased sleep time and excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) occur daily for years in IH, whereas they occur as relapsing/remitting episodes associated with cognitive and behavioural disturbances in KLS. Idiopathic hypersomnia is characterized by EDS, prolonged, unrefreshing sleep at night and during naps, and frequent morning sleep inertia, but rare sleep attacks, no cataplexy and sleep onset in REM periods as in narcolepsy. The diagnosis requires: (i) ruling out common causes of hypersomnolence, including mostly sleep apnea, insufficient sleep syndrome, psychiatric hypersomnia and narcolepsy; and (ii) obtaining objective EDS measures (mean latency at the multiple sleep latency test≤8min) or increased sleep time (sleep time>11h during a 18-24h bed rest). Treatment is similar to narcolepsy (except for preventive naps), including adapted work schedules, and off label use (after agreement from reference/competence centres) of modafinil, sodium oxybate, pitolisant, methylphenidate and solriamfetol. The diagnosis of KLS requires: (i) a reliable history of distinct episodes of one to several weeks; (ii) episodes contain severe hypersomnia (sleep>15h/d) associated with cognitive impairment (mental confusion and slowness, amnesia), derealisation, major apathy or disinhibited behaviour (hypersexuality, megaphagia, rudeness); and (iii) return to baseline sleep, cognition, behaviour and mood after episodes. EEG may contain slow rhythms during episodes, and rules out epilepsy. Functional brain imaging indicates hypoactivity of posterior associative cortex and hippocampus during symptomatic and asymptomatic periods. KLS attenuates with time when starting during teenage, including less frequent and less severe episodes. Adequate sleep habits, avoidance of alcohol and infections, as well as lithium and sometimes valproate (off label, after agreement from reference centres) help reducing the frequency and severity of episodes, and IV methylprednisolone helps reducing long (>30d) episode duration.

Sleepiness in neurological disorders

Sleepiness is a frequent and underrecognized symptom in neurological disorders, that impacts functional outcomes and quality of life. Multiple and potentially additive factors might contribute to sleepiness in neurological disorders, including sleep quality alterations, circadian rhythm disorders, drugs, and sleep disorders including sleep apnea or central disorders of hypersomnolence. Physician awareness of the possible symptoms of hypersomnolence, and associated causes is of crucial importance to allow proper identification and treatment of underlying causes. This review first provides a brief overview on clinical aspects of excessive daytime sleepiness, and diagnosis tools, then examines its frequency and mechanisms in various neurological disorders, including neurodegenerative disorders, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune encephalitis, epilepsy, and stroke.

Evaluation of hypersomnolence: From symptoms to diagnosis, a multidimensional approach

Hypersomnolence is a major public health issue given its high frequency, its impact on academic/occupational functioning and on accidentology, as well as its heavy socio-economic burden. The positive and aetiological diagnosis is crucial, as it determines the therapeutic strategy. It must consider the following aspects: i) hypersomnolence is a complex concept referring to symptoms as varied as excessive daytime sleepiness, excessive need for sleep, sleep inertia, or drowsiness, all of which warrant specific dedicated investigations; ii) the boundary between physiological and abnormal hypersomnolence is blurred, since most symptoms can be encountered in the general population to varying degrees without being considered as pathological, meaning that their severity, frequency, context of occurrence and related impairment need to be carefully assessed; iii) investigation of hypersomnolence relies on scales/questionnaires as well as behavioural and neurophysiological tests, which measure one or more dimensions, keeping in mind the possible discrepancy between objective and subjective assessment; iv) aetiological reasoning is driven by knowledge of the main sleep regulation mechanisms, epidemiology, and associated symptoms. The need to assess hypersomnolence is growing, both for its management, and for assessing the efficacy of treatments. The landscape of tools available for investigating hypersomnolence is constantly evolving, in parallel with research into sleep physiology and technical advances. These investigations face the challenges of reconciling subjective perception and objective data, making tools accessible to as many people as possible and predicting the risk of accidents.

Central Disorders of Hypersomnolence

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this article are to describe the clinical approach to and management of patients with central disorders of hypersomnolence, and to understand and differentiate available diagnostic tools.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence and narcolepsy specifically highlight new treatment options. Approval for a lower-sodium oxybate formulation that contains 92% less sodium than the standard sodium oxybate for the treatment of narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia adds to the number of medications available for these disorders, allowing for a more tailored management of symptoms.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

Central disorders of hypersomnolence are characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness that impacts daily functions. These disorders can be differentiated by obtaining a detailed clinical sleep history and by a thoughtful interpretation of sleep diagnostic testing. Tailoring treatment approaches to meet the needs of individuals and accounting for medical and psychiatric comorbidities may improve quality of life.

Narcolepsy and Idiopathic Hypersomnia

Narcolepsy types 1 and 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia are primary Central Nervous System (CNS) disorders of hypersomnolence characterized by profound daytime sleepiness and/or excessive sleep need. Onset of symptoms begins typically in childhood or adolescence, and children can have unique presentations compared with adults. Narcolepsy type 1 is likely caused by immune-mediated loss of orexin (hypocretin) neurons in the hypothalamus; however, the causes of narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia are unknown. Existing treatments improve daytime sleepiness and cataplexy but there is no cure for these disorders.

Novel Objective Measures of Hypersomnolence

Purpose of review

To provide a brief overview of current objective measures of hypersomnolence, discuss proposed measure modifications, and review emerging measures.

Recent findings

There is potential to optimize current tools using novel metrics. High-density and quantitative EEG-based measures may provide discriminative informative. Cognitive testing may quantify cognitive dysfunction common to hypersomnia disorders, particularly in attention, and objectively measure pathologic sleep inertia. Structural and functional neuroimaging studies in narcolepsy type 1 have shown considerable variability but so far implicate both hypothalamic and extra-hypothalamic regions; fewer studies of other CDH have been performed. There is recent renewed interest in pupillometry as a measure of alertness in the evaluation of hypersomnolence.

Summary

No single test captures the full spectrum of disorders and use of multiple measures will likely improve diagnostic precision. Research is needed to identify novel measures and disease-specific biomarkers, and to define combinations of measures optimal for CDH diagnosis.

Update on the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia: Progress, challenges, and expert opinion

Idiopathic hypersomnia is a central hypersomnolence disorder of unknown origin characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness despite normal or long sleep time, and frequent severe sleep inertia. Management strategies have been largely derived from expert consensus, due to a lack of disease-specific assessments and reliance on case series and rare randomized controlled studies. Guidelines recommend treatment with off-label medications. Modafinil, which was approved for idiopathic hypersomnia until 2011 in Europe, is the most commonly used treatment and improved sleepiness in two recent randomized placebo-controlled trials. In 2021, low-sodium oxybate (LXB) was approved in the United States for idiopathic hypersomnia. In a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study, LXB reduced daytime sleepiness and sleep inertia, and improved daily functioning. Here, treatment options are reviewed considering the authors' professional experience, current guidelines, and the latest research developments. The choice of pharmacotherapy should be guided by symptom profile, age, comorbidities (eg, depressive symptoms, cardiovascular problems), and concomitant medications (eg, oral contraceptives). Nonpharmacologic approaches have a role in management. An instrument (idiopathic hypersomnia severity scale) has been validated in idiopathic hypersomnia specifically, opening a path to better assessment of symptoms, impact, and response to treatment. Continued research on idiopathic hypersomnia is needed to support treatment algorithms.

Sleepiness in adults: An umbrella review of a complex construct

Sleepiness involves many dimensions that require investigation. Since sleepiness is often defined operationally, we exhaustively inventoried all the assessment tools designed to measure it in an umbrella review, without any preconceptions, i.e. a review of reviews. We included all reviews and systematic reviews related to sleepiness assessment tools published up to March 2021. Three investigators independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion and identified 36 relevant reviews. In total, 99 tools were identified and classified into 8 categories. We classified them depending on their category, their publication year and the number of mentions in the 36 included reviews. The 6 most frequently cited were the Epworth sleepiness scale, the multiple sleep latency test, the maintenance of wakefulness test, the Stanford sleepiness scale, the Karolinska sleepiness scale, and the psychomotor vigilance task. Despite the limitation that we may have missed some recently developed tools, this historical perspective on sleepiness measurement is a first step toward a better delineation of the different dimensions underlying the constructs of sleepiness, and will serve as a basis for further discussion in the clinical and research sleep community.

Temporal distribution of sleep onset REM periods and N3 sleep in the MSLT and night polysomnogram of narcolepsy type 1 and other hypersomnias

INTRODUCTION

The presence of ≥2 sleep onset REM periods (SOREMP) in the Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) and the previous night polysomnogram (PSG) is part of the diagnostic criteria of narcolepsy, with every SOREMP having the same diagnostic value, despite evidence suggesting that time of SOREMP appearance and their preceding sleep stage might be relevant. We studied the temporal distribution of SOREMPs and associated sleep stages in the MSLT of patients with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) and other hypersomnias (OH).

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive five-nap MSLTs and their preceding PSG from 83 untreated adult patients with hypersomnolence and ≥1 SOREMPs. Wake/N1(W/N1)-SOREMPs, N2-SOREMPs, and N3 sleep presence and time of appearance were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients had NT1 and 44 OH. There were 183 (78%) SOREMPs in patients with NT1 and 83 (31%) in OH. Sixty-seven percent of SOREMPs in NT1 were from W/N1, and 20% -none from wake-in OH (p < 0.001). Most patients (94%) with ≥2 W/N1-SOREMPs had NT1 (specificity 95%, sensitivity 82%). In patients with NT1 but not in OH, W/N1-SOREMPs decreased throughout the day (from 79% in the 1st nap to 33% in the preceding night, p < 0.001), whereas N2-SOREMPs did not change. N3 sleep frequency in the 5th nap was higher in NT1 than in OH (28% vs. 7%, p:0.009). Nocturnal-SOREMP plus ≥4 daytime SOREMPs, Wake-REM transitions, and REM followed by N3 were only seen in NT1.

CONCLUSION

Measuring the sleep stage sequence and temporal distribution of SOREMP helps to identify patients with narcolepsy in the MSLT.

Rapid eye movement sleep duration during the multiple sleep latency test to diagnose hypocretin-deficient narcolepsy

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To assess the performances of alternative measures of the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) to identify hypocretin-deficiency in patients with a complaint of hypersomnolence, including patients with narcolepsy.

METHODS

MSLT parameters from 374 drug-free patients with hypersomnolence, with complete clinical and polysomnographic (PSG) assessment and cerebrospinal hypocretin-1 measurement were collected. Conventional (sleep latency, number of sleep onset REM-SOREM-periods) and alternative (sleep duration, REM sleep latency and duration, sleep stage transitions) MSLT measures were compared as function of hypocretin-1 levels (≤110 vs > 110 pg/mL). We performed receiver-operating characteristics analyses to determine the best thresholds of MSLT parameters to identify hypocretin-deficiency in the global population and in subgroups of patients with narcolepsy (i.e. typical cataplexy and/or positive PSG/MSLT criteria, n = 223).

RESULTS

Patients with hypocretin-deficiency had shorter mean sleep and REM sleep latencies, longer mean sleep and REM sleep durations and more direct REM sleep transitions during the MSLT. The current standards of MSLT/PSG criteria identified hypocretin-deficient patients with a sensitivity of 0.87 and a specificity of 0.69, and 0.81/0.99 when combined with cataplexy. A mean REM sleep duration ≥ 4.1 min best identified hypocretin-deficiency in patients with hypersomnolence (AUC = 0.932, sensitivity 0.87, specificity 0.86) and ≥ 5.7 min in patients with narcolepsy (AUC = 0.832, sensitivity 0.77, specificity 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Compared to the current neurophysiological standard criteria, alternative MSLT parameters would better identify hypocretin-deficiency among patients with hypersomnolence and those with narcolepsy. We highlighted daytime REM sleep duration as a relevant neurophysiological biomarker of hypocretin-deficiency to be used in clinical and research settings.

Clinical considerations for the diagnosis of idiopathic hypersomnia

Idiopathic hypersomnia is a sleep disorder of neurologic origin characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness, with sleep inertia, long, unrefreshing naps, and prolonged nighttime sleep being key symptoms in many patients. Idiopathic hypersomnia is described in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, 3rd Edition as a central disorder of hypersomnolence with distinct clinical features and diagnostic criteria; however, confirming the diagnosis of idiopathic hypersomnia is often challenging. Diagnosis of idiopathic hypersomnia is based on objective sleep testing and the presence of associated clinical features but may be difficult for clinicians to recognize and correctly diagnose because of its low prevalence, clinical heterogeneity, and symptoms, which are similar to those of other sleep disorders. The testing required for diagnosis of idiopathic hypersomnia also presents logistical barriers, and reliability of objective sleep measures is suboptimal. The pathophysiology of idiopathic hypersomnia remains unknown. In this review, clinical considerations related to the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management of idiopathic hypersomnia will be discussed, including perspectives from the European Union and United States.

Understanding and approaching excessive daytime sleepiness

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a public health issue. However, it remains largely undervalued, scarcely diagnosed, and poorly supported. Variations in the definition of EDS and limitations in clinical assessment lead to difficulties in its epidemiological study, but the relevance of this symptom from a socioeconomic perspective is inarguable. EDS might be a consequence of several behavioural issues leading to insufficient or disrupted sleep, as well as a consequence of sleep disorders including sleep apnoea syndrome, circadian disorders, central hypersomnolence disorders (narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia), other medical or psychiatric conditions, or medications. Furthermore, EDS can have implications for health as it is thought to act as a risk factor for other conditions, such as cardiovascular and neurodegenerative disorders. Because of the heterogeneous causes of EDS and the complexity of its pathophysiology, management will largely depend on the cause, with the final aim of making treatment specific to the individual using precision medicine and personalised medicine.

Precision Medicine for Idiopathic Hypersomnia

Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) includes a clinical phenotype resembling narcolepsy (with repeated, short restorative naps), and a phenotype with an excess of sleep, sleep drunkenness, drowsiness, and infrequent long, nonrestorative naps. Sleep tests reflect this heterogeneity. MSLTs are greater than 8 min in 2/3 of the cases and poorly repeatable. Sleep excess is better captured by extended monitoring identifying 11 to 16h of sleep/24 h. Patients with IH are young and more often female. Possible mechanisms of IH include deficiencies in arousal systems, inappropriate stimulation of sleep-inducing systems, and long biological night. Treatments now include robust studies of modafinil, clarithromycin, and sodium oxybate.

The orexin story, sleep and sleep disturbances

The orexins, also known as hypocretins, are two neuropeptides (orexin A and B or hypocretin 1 and 2) produced by a few thousand neurons located in the lateral hypothalamus that were independently discovered by two research groups in 1998. Those two peptides bind two receptors (orexin/hypocretin receptor 1 and receptor 2) that are widely distributed in the brain and involved in the central physiological regulation of sleep and wakefulness, orexin receptor 2 having the major role in the maintenance of arousal. They are also implicated in a multiplicity of other functions, such as reward seeking, energy balance, autonomic regulation and emotional behaviours. The destruction of orexin neurons is responsible for the sleep disorder narcolepsy with cataplexy (type 1) in humans, and a defect of orexin signalling also causes a narcoleptic phenotype in several animal species. Orexin discovery is unprecedented in the history of sleep research, and pharmacological manipulations of orexin may have multiple therapeutic applications. Several orexin receptor antagonists were recently developed as new drugs for insomnia, and orexin agonists may be the next-generation drugs for narcolepsy. Given the broad range of functions of the orexin system, these drugs might also be beneficial for treating various conditions other than sleep disorders in the near future.

Data-Driven Phenotyping of Central Disorders of Hypersomnolence With Unsupervised Clustering

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Recent studies fueled doubts as to whether all currently defined central disorders of hypersomnolence are stable entities, especially narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia. New reliable biomarkers are needed, and the question arises of whether current diagnostic criteria of hypersomnolence disorders should be reassessed. The main aim of this data-driven observational study was to see whether data-driven algorithms would segregate narcolepsy type 1 and identify more reliable subgrouping of individuals without cataplexy with new clinical biomarkers.

METHODS

We used agglomerative hierarchical clustering, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm, to identify distinct hypersomnolence clusters in the large-scale European Narcolepsy Network database. We included 97 variables, covering all aspects of central hypersomnolence disorders such as symptoms, demographics, objective and subjective sleep measures, and laboratory biomarkers. We specifically focused on subgrouping of patients without cataplexy. The number of clusters was chosen to be the minimal number for which patients without cataplexy were put in distinct groups.

RESULTS

We included 1,078 unmedicated adolescents and adults. Seven clusters were identified, of which 4 clusters included predominantly individuals with cataplexy. The 2 most distinct clusters consisted of 158 and 157 patients, were dominated by those without cataplexy, and among other variables, significantly differed in presence of sleep drunkenness, subjective difficulty awakening, and weekend-week sleep length difference. Patients formally diagnosed as having narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia were evenly mixed in these 2 clusters.

DISCUSSION

Using a data-driven approach in the largest study on central disorders of hypersomnolence to date, our study identified distinct patient subgroups within the central disorders of hypersomnolence population. Our results contest inclusion of sleep-onset REM periods in diagnostic criteria for people without cataplexy and provide promising new variables for reliable diagnostic categories that better resemble different patient phenotypes. Cluster-guided classification will result in a more solid hypersomnolence classification system that is less vulnerable to instability of single features.

50th anniversary of the ESRS in 2022-JSR special issue

This article addresses the clinical presentation, diagnosis, pathophysiology and management of narcolepsy type 1 and 2, with a focus on recent findings. A low level of hypocretin-1/orexin-A in the cerebrospinal fluid is sufficient to diagnose narcolepsy type 1, being a highly specific and sensitive biomarker, and the irreversible loss of hypocretin neurons is responsible for the main symptoms of the disease: sleepiness, cataplexy, sleep-related hallucinations and paralysis, and disrupted nocturnal sleep. The process responsible for the destruction of hypocretin neurons is highly suspected to be autoimmune, or dysimmune. Over the last two decades, remarkable progress has been made for the understanding of these mechanisms that were made possible with the development of new techniques. Conversely, narcolepsy type 2 is a less well-defined disorder, with a variable phenotype and evolution, and few reliable biomarkers discovered so far. There is a dearth of knowledge about this disorder, and its aetiology remains unclear and needs to be further explored. Treatment of narcolepsy is still nowadays only symptomatic, targeting sleepiness, cataplexy and disrupted nocturnal sleep. However, new psychostimulants have been recently developed, and the upcoming arrival of non-peptide hypocretin receptor-2 agonists should be a revolution in the management of this rare sleep disease, and maybe also for disorders beyond narcolepsy.

The diagnostic value of sleep and vigilance tests in central disorders of hypersomnolence

Study Objectives

This retrospective cross-sectional observational study explored the diagnostic value of selected sleep and vigilance tests (SVT) beyond the multiple sleep latency test to differentiate between various central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH) and fatigue syndromes.

Methods

Data from patients who underwent the multiple sleep latency test and at least one additional SVT were extracted from the Bern sleep database (1997–2018). One thousand three hundred fifty-two patients with a CDH (106 narcolepsy type 1, 90 narcolepsy type 2, 119 idiopathic hypersomnia, 192 nonorganic hypersomnia, 205 insufficient sleep syndrome), fatigue syndromes (n = 183), and a subgroup of patients with sleep apnea (n = 457) were analyzed. Classification based on SVT parameters was compared with the final clinical diagnosis serving as a reference.

Results

An overall model predicted the final diagnosis in 49.5% of patients. However, for the pairwise differentiation of two clinically suspected diagnoses, many SVT parameters showed a sensitivity and specificity above 70%. While the overall discrimination power of the multiple sleep latency test was slightly better than the one of the maintenance of wakefulness test, the latter differentiated best between narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia with prolonged sleep need. Disproportionally poor results in reaction tests (e.g. steer clear test), despite comparable or lower sleepiness levels (SLAT, WLAT), were valuable for differentiating nonorganic hypersomnia from idiopathic hypersomnia/sleep insufficiency syndrome.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates how the combination of a careful clinical assessment and a selection of SVTs can improve the differentiation of CDH, whereas it was not possible to establish an overall prediction model based on SVTs alone.

Idiopathic Hypersomnia Severity Scale to better quantify symptoms severity and their consequences in idiopathic hypersomnia

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To assess the responsiveness of the Idiopathic Hypersomnia Severity Scale (IHSS) to medications and estimate the minimum clinically important difference, to report clinically relevant score ranges, and to confirm its psychometric properties and whether items need to be weighted in drug-free and treated patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (IH).

METHODS

Two-hundred twenty-six (166 drug-free and 60 treated) patients with IH (cross-sectional sample) completed the 14-item IHSS to quantify the severity of the 3 major IH symptoms (excessive daytime sleepiness, prolonged nighttime sleep, and sleep inertia) and consequences; 77 untreated patients were evaluated again after treatment (longitudinal sample). Patients filled in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Beck Depression Inventory II, and European Quality of Life questionnaires.

RESULTS

The IHSS confirmed adequate psychometric properties with a factor analysis indicating a 3-component solution. IHSS total score was lower in treated than untreated patients, with a mean difference of 4-5 points in the cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. Distribution-based methods were used to estimate that 4 points represented the minimum clinically important difference. Four severity levels were defined with between-group differences related to treatment. The probability of having severe sleepiness, depressive symptoms, and low quality of life increased with the severity level. Our results showed that IHSS item-weighting was not necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

The IHSS is a valid and reliable tool to quantify IH symptoms, with 4 severity score levels of clinical importance. The IHSS has adequate psychometric properties and can detect symptom changes after treatment. These findings should stimulate its use in clinical settings and in research studies.

CITATION

Rassu AL, Evangelista E, Barateau L, et al. Idiopathic Hypersomnia Severity Scale to better quantify symptoms severity and their consequences in idiopathic hypersomnia. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(2):617-629.

Comorbid parasomnias in narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia: more REM than NREM parasomnias

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To assess the frequency, determinants and clinical impact of clinical NREM and REM parasomnias in adult patients with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), narcolepsy type 2 (NT2), and idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) compared to healthy controls.

METHODS

Familial and past and current personal parasomnias were assessed by questionnaire and medical interviews in 710 patients (220 NT1, 199 NT2, and 221 IH) and 595 healthy controls.

RESULTS

Except for sleep-related eating disorder (SRED), current NREM parasomnias were rare in all patient groups and controls. SRED was more frequent in NT1 patients (7.9%, vs. 1.8% in NT2 patients, 2.1% in IH patients and 1% in controls) and associated with disrupted nighttime sleep (odds ratio [OR] = 3.9) and nocturnal eating in full awareness (OR = 6.9) but not with sex. Clinical REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) was more frequent in NT1 patients (41.4%, half being violent) than in NT2 patients (13.2%) and affected men more often than women (OR = 2.4). It was associated with disrupted nighttime sleep, depressive symptoms and antidepressant use. Frequent (>1/week) nightmares were reported by 39% of patients with NT1, 29% with NT2 and 27.8% with IH (vs. 8.3% in controls) and were associated with depressive symptoms in narcolepsy. No parasomnia (except sleep-related hallucinations) worsened daytime sleepiness.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with central disorders of hypersomnolence, comorbid NREM parasomnias (except SRED) are rare and do not worsen sleepiness. In contrast, REM parasomnias are prevalent (especially in NT1) and associated with male sex, disrupted nighttime sleep, depressive symptoms and antidepressant use.

Idiopathic Hypersomnia: Historical Account, Critical Review of Current Tests and Criteria, Diagnostic Evaluation in the Absence of Biological Markers and Robust Electrophysiological Diagnostic Criteria

Idiopathic hypersomnia was first described in 1976 under two forms: polysymptomatic, characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness, long and unrefreshing naps, nocturnal sleep of abnormally long duration and signs of sleep drunkenness upon awakening; monosymptomatic, manifested by excessive daytime sleepiness only. Yet, after 45 years, this sleep disorder is still poorly delineated and diagnostic criteria produced by successive International Classifications of Sleep Disorders are far from satisfactory. The first part of this review is a historical account of the successive names and descriptions of idiopathic hypersomnia: monosymptomatic and polysymptomatic idiopathic hypersomnia in 1976; central nervous system idiopathic hypersomnia in 1979; idiopathic hypersomnia in 1990; idiopathic hypersomnia with and without long sleep time in 2005; idiopathic hypersomnia again in 2014; and, within the last few years, the proposal of separating idiopathic hypersomnia into a well-defined subtype, idiopathic hypersomnia with long sleep duration, and a more heterogeneous subtype combining idiopathic hypersomnia without long sleep duration and narcolepsy type 2. The second part is a critical review of both current ICSD-3 diagnostic criteria and clinical features, scales and questionnaires, electrophysiological and circadian control tests, research techniques, currently used to diagnose idiopathic hypersomnia. The third part proposes a diagnostic evaluation of idiopathic hypersomnia, in the absence of biologic markers and of robust electrophysiological diagnostic criteria.

Safety and efficacy of lower-sodium oxybate in adults with idiopathic hypersomnia: a phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised withdrawal study

BACKGROUND

Idiopathic hypersomnia is a central hypersomnolence disorder mainly characterised by excessive daytime sleepiness, with prolonged night-time sleep and pronounced sleep inertia. Until August, 2021, no medication had regulatory approval for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lower-sodium oxybate in idiopathic hypersomnia.

METHODS

This was a phase 3, multicentre (50 specialist sleep centres; six EU countries and the USA), placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised withdrawal study. Participants (aged 18-75 years) with idiopathic hypersomnia (meeting criteria from the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, 2nd or 3rd editions) began lower-sodium oxybate treatment (oral solution once or twice nightly) in an open-label titration and optimisation period (10-14 weeks), followed by a 2-week, open-label, stable-dose period. After these open-label periods, participants were randomised (1:1) by means of an interactive web recognition system, stratified by participants' baseline medication use, to either placebo or lower-sodium oxybate (individually optimised dose; range 2·5-9·0 g/night) during a 2-week, double-blind, randomised withdrawal period. To maintain masking of treatment assignment, placebo and lower-sodium oxybate oral solutions were matched in volume, appearance, and taste. During the double-blind, randomised withdrawal period, participants and investigators were unaware of treatment assignments. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score from the end of the stable-dose period to the end of the double-blind, randomised withdrawal period, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (defined as all participants who were randomly assigned, took at least one dose of study medication during the double blind, randomised withdrawal period, and had at least one set of post-randomisation assessments for the primary or key secondary endpoints). Adverse events were assessed in the safety population (defined as all participants who took at least one dose of study medication). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03533114, and at EU Clinical Trials, 2018-001311-79, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 27, 2018, and March 6, 2020, 154 participants were enrolled and comprised the safety population. ESS scores decreased from a mean of 15·7 (SD 3·8) at baseline to 6·1 (4·0) by the end of the stable-dose period. After the open-label periods, 115 participants were randomly assigned either placebo (n=59) or lower-sodium oxybate (n=56) and comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. During the double-blind, randomised withdrawal period, ESS scores increased (worsened) in participants randomly assigned to placebo but remained stable in those assigned to lower-sodium oxybate (least squares mean difference -6·5; 95% CI -8·0 to -5·0; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events included nausea (34 [22%] of 154), headache (27 [18%] of 154), dizziness (19 [12%] of 154), anxiety (17 [11%] 154), and vomiting (17 [11%] 154). No deaths were reported during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Lower-sodium oxybate treatment resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in idiopathic hypersomnia symptoms, with an overall safety profile consistent with that reported for narcolepsy. Lower-sodium oxybate was approved in August, 2021, by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults.

FUNDING

Jazz Pharmaceuticals.

Metabolomic Signature of Patients With Narcolepsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) is an orphan brain disorder caused by the irreversible destruction of orexin neurons. Metabolic disturbances are common in patients with NT1 who have a body mass index (BMI) 10-20% higher than the general population, with one third being obese (BMI>30 kg/m²). Besides the destruction of orexin neurons in NT1, the metabolic alterations in obese and non-obese patients with narcolepsy type 1 remain unknown. The aim of the study was to identify possible differences in plasma metabolic profiles between patients with NT1 and controls as a function of their BMI status.

METHODS

We used a targeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry metabolomics approach to measure 141 circulating, low molecular weight metabolites in drug-free fasted plasma samples from 117 NT1 patients (including 41 obese subjects) compared with 116 BMI-matched controls (including 57 obese subjects).

RESULTS

Common metabolites driving the difference between NT1 and controls, irrespective of BMI, were identified, namely sarcosine, glutamate, nonaylcarnitine (C9), 5 long chain lysophosphatidylcholine acyls, one sphingolipid, 12 phosphatidylcholine diacyls and 11 phosphatidylcholine acyl-akyls, all showing increased concentrations in NT1. Metabolite concentrations significantly affected by NT1 (n = 42) and BMI category (n = 40) showed little overlap (n = 5). Quantitative enrichment analysis revealed common metabolic pathways that were implicated in the NT1/control differences, in both normal BMI and obese comparisons, namely glycine and serine, arachidonic acid, and tryptophan metabolisms. The metabolites driving these differences were glutamate, sarcosine and ornithine (glycine and serine metabolism), glutamate and PC aa C34:4 (arachidonic acid metabolism) and glutamate, serotonin and tryptophan (tryptophan metabolism). Linear metabolite-endophenotype regression analyses highlight that as part of the NT1 metabolic phenotype, most of the relationships between the sleep parameters (i.e. slow wave sleep duration, sleep latency and periodic leg movement) and metabolite concentrations seen in the controls were lost.

DISCUSSION

These results represented the most comprehensive metabolic profiling of patients with NT1 as a function of BMI and propose some metabolic diagnostic biomarkers for NT1, namely glutamate, sarcosine, serotonin, tryptophan, nonaylcarnitine and some phosphatidylcholines. The metabolic pathways identified offer, if confirmed, possible targets for treatment of obesity in NT1.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class II evidence that a distinct metabolic profile can differentiate patients with Narcolepsy Type 1 from patients without the disorder.

Sleep inertia measurement with the psychomotor vigilance task in idiopathic hypersomnia

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Sleep inertia is a frequent and disabling symptom in idiopathic hypersomnia (IH), but poorly defined and without objective measures. The study objective was to determine whether the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) can reliably measure sleep inertia in patients with IH or other sleep disorders (non-IH).

METHODS

Sixty-two (51 women, mean age: 27.7±9.2) patients with IH and 140 (71 women, age: 33.3±12.1) with non-IH (narcolepsy=29, non-specified hypersomnolence NSH=47, obstructive sleep apnea=39, insomnia=25) were included. Sleep inertia and sleep drunkenness in the last month (M-sleep inertia) and on PVT day (D-sleep inertia) were assessed with three items of the Idiopathic Hypersomnia Severity Scale (IHSS), in drug-free conditions. The PVT was performed four times (7:00 PM, and 7:00, 7:30 and 11:00 AM) and three metrics were used: lapses, mean 1/Reaction Time (RT), slowest 10% 1/RT.

RESULTS

Sleep inertia was more frequent in patients with IH than non-IH (56.5% and 43.6% with severe sleep inertia in the past month, including 24% and 12% with sleep drunkenness). Lapse number increase and slowest 10% 1/RT decrease, particularly at 7:00 and 7:30AM, were proportional with M-sleep inertia severity, but regardless of sleep drunkenness and sleep disorders. Similar results were obtained when PVT results were compared in patients with/without D-sleep inertia, with the largest increase of the lapse number at 7:00 and 7:30AM associated with severe sleep inertia and sleep drunkenness.

CONCLUSION

PVT is a reliable and objective measure of sleep inertia that might be useful for its characterization, management and follow-up in patients with IH.

Cerebrospinal fluid monoamine levels in central disorders of hypersomnolence

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Whether the cause of daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy type 1 (NT1) is a direct consequence of the loss of orexin (ORX) neurons or whether low orexin reduces the efficacy of the monoaminergic systems to promote wakefulness is unclear. The neurobiology underlying sleepiness in other central hypersomnolence disorders, narcolepsy type 2 (NT2), and idiopathic hypersomnia (IH), is currently unknown.

METHODS

Eleven biogenic amines including the monoaminergic neurotransmitters and their metabolites and five trace amines were measured in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of 94 drug-free subjects evaluated at the French National Reference Center for Narcolepsy: 39 NT1(orexin-deficient) patients, 31 patients with objective sleepiness non orexin-deficient (NT2 and IH), and 24 patients without objective sleepiness.

RESULTS

Three trace amines were undetectable in the sample: tryptamine, octopamine, and 3-iodothyronamine. No significant differences were found among the three groups for quantified monoamines and their metabolites in crude and adjusted models; however, CSF 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) levels tended to increase in NT1 compared to other patients after adjustment. Most of the biomarkers were not associated with ORX-A levels, clinical or neurophysiological parameters, but a few biomarkers (e.g. 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol and norepinephrine) correlated with daytime sleepiness and high rapid eye movement (REM) sleep propensity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no striking differences among CSF monoamines, their metabolites and trace amine levels, and few associations between them and key clinical or neurophysiological parameters in NT1, NT2/IH, and patients without objective sleepiness. Although mostly negative, these findings are a significant contribution to our understanding of the neurobiology of hypersomnolence in these disorders that remain mysterious and deserve further exploration.

Multimodal assessment increases objective identification of hypersomnolence in patients referred for multiple sleep latency testing

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) has limitations when evaluating disorders of hypersomnolence with unknown etiology. Alternative measures of hypersomnolence may objectively identify pathology in patients with complaints of daytime sleepiness that may not be captured by the MSLT alone. This study evaluated the impact of a multimodal hypersomnolence assessment relative to MSLT in patients with unexplained hypersomnolence.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients with unexplained hypersomnolence were included in the analyzed sample. Polysomnography was performed without prescribed wake time, and the psychomotor vigilance task and pupillographic sleepiness test were completed between MSLT nap opportunities. Presence or absence of hypersomnolence for each assessment was defined using a priori cutpoints. Proportions of patients identified as hypersomnolent using the multimodal assessment relative to MSLT alone were evaluated, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of ancillary hypersomnolence measures relative to MSLT as a gold standard.

RESULTS

The multimodal assessment more than doubled the proportion of patients identified as having objective deficits relative to MSLT ≤ 8 minutes alone. The combination of excessive sleep duration, lapses on the psychomotor vigilance task, and impairments on the pupillographic sleepiness test also had perfect sensitivity in identifying all patients identified as sleepy by the MSLT across 3 different MSLT cutpoints (5, 8, and 10 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate the insufficiency of the MSLT as a singular tool to identify objective pathology in persons with unexplained hypersomnolence. Further efforts to refine and standardize multimodal assessments will likely improve diagnostic acumen and research into the causes of these disorders.

Observation and Interview-based Diurnal Sleepiness Inventory for measurement of sleepiness in patients referred for narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia

STUDY OBJECTIVES

First, to determine whether the 3-item Observation and Interview-based Diurnal Sleepiness Inventory (ODSI) measures the degree of excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with suspected narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia (IH). Second, to assess the correlation between the ODSI and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) as well as objective polysomnographic measurements. Third, to test the accuracy of the ODSI to detect narcolepsy or IH (narcolepsy/IH) compared with the ESS.

METHODS

A total of 181 patients complaining of excessive daytime sleepiness filled in the ESS and the ODSI and underwent measurements including actigraphy, full-night polysomnography, Multiple Sleep Latency Test, and 24-hour bedrest sleep recording.

RESULTS

Narcolepsy or IH was diagnosed in 76 patients. The ODSI found excessive daytime sleepiness in 92.3% of all patients and in 98.7% of those diagnosed with narcolepsy/IH. In the whole population, the ODSI was significantly positively correlated with the ESS (R = .547; 95% confidence interval: .436, .642; P < .001) and weakly with 24-hour total sleep time on bedrest recording (R = .208; 95% confidence interval: .056, .350; P = .047) but not with the Multiple Sleep Latency Test. The ODSI offered a higher negative (92.9%) and positive (44.9%) predictive value to detect narcolepsy/IH than did the ESS (66.7% and 43.3%, respectively). In the IH group, the ODSI's third-item score (daily sleepiness duration) was significantly higher in patients with than without increased 24-hour total sleep time (P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

The ODSI is a brief, simple first-line questionnaire that explores both intensity and duration of daytime sleepiness and offers a high sensitivity to detect narcolepsy and IH.

PAX8/PAX8-AS1 DNA methylation levels are associated with objective sleep duration in persons with unexplained hypersomnolence using a deep phenotyping approach

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Patients with unexplained hypersomnolence have significant impairment related to daytime sleepiness and excessive sleep duration, the biological bases of which are poorly understood. This investigation sought to examine relationships between objectively measured hypersomnolence phenotypes and epigenetic modification of candidate hypersomnolence genes to advance this line of inquiry.

METHODS

Twenty-eight unmedicated clinical patients with unexplained hypersomnolence were evaluated using overnight ad libitum polysomnography, multiple sleep latency testing, infrared pupillometry, and the psychomotor vigilance task. DNA methylation levels on CpG sites annotated to 11 a priori hypersomnolence candidate genes were assessed for statistical association with hypersomnolence measures using independent regression models with adjusted local index of significance (aLIS) P-value threshold of 0.05.

RESULTS

Nine CpG sites exhibited significant associations between DNA methylation levels and total sleep time measured using ad libitum polysomnography (aLIS p-value < .05). All nine differentially methylated CpG sites were annotated to the paired box 8 (PAX8) gene and its related antisense gene (PAX8-AS1). Among these nine differentially methylated positions was a cluster of five CpG sites located in the body of the PAX8 gene and promoter of PAX8-AS1.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that PAX8/PAX8-AS1 DNA methylation levels are associated with total sleep time in persons with unexplained hypersomnolence. Given prior investigations that have implicated single nucleotide polymorphisms in PAX8/PAX8-AS1 with habitual sleep duration, further research that clarifies the role of DNA methylation levels on these genes in the phenotypic expression of total sleep time is warranted.

Characteristics associated with hypersomnia and excessive daytime sleepiness identified by extended polysomnography recording

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Hypersomnolence, defined by excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) or excessive quantity of sleep (EQS), has been associated with increased morbidity. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical and polysomnographic characteristics associated with EQS and EDS assessed objectively during extended polysomnography recording.

METHODS

A total of 266 drug-free subjects (201 women; mean age: 26.5 years [16.08; 60.87]) underwent 32-h bed-rest polysomnography recording preceded by polysomnography and modified multiple sleep latency test (mMSLT). Participants were categorized according to their total sleep time (bed-rest TST ≥19 h, hypersomnia), objective EDS (mean sleep latency on MSLT ≤8 min), and self-reported EDS (Epworth sleepiness scale score >10) and EQS (≥9 h/24 h per week).

RESULTS

Subjects with hypersomnia were often younger, with normal sleep architecture, high nighttime sleep efficiency, and severe objective EDS. No association with sex, body mass index, Epworth sleepiness scale, EQS, and depressive symptoms was detected. Subjects with objective EDS had less EQS, higher sleep efficiency, and increased hypersomnia. Discrepancies were observed between objective and self-reported measures of sleep duration and EDS. Finally, 71 subjects were identified who had objective hypersomnia and/or EDS, no medical and psychiatric conditions and normal polysomnography parameters, and therefore met the stringent criteria of idiopathic hypersomnia, an orphan disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Sleep duration and EDS should be quantified using self-reported and objective measures in a controlled procedure to differentiate long sleepers, patients with hypersomnia, and patients with idiopathic hypersomnia. This will help to better understand their biology, to identify specific biomarkers, and to assess related health outcomes.

Excessive Daytime Sleepiness: A Clinical Review

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a highly prevalent condition that is associated with significant morbidity. The causes of EDS are varied, and include inadequate sleep, sleep disordered breathing, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, and central disorders of hypersomnolence (narcolepsy, idiopathic hypersomnia, and Kleine-Levin syndrome). Additionally, EDS could represent a symptom of an underlying medical or psychiatric disorder. Assessment of EDS includes a thorough sleep, medical, and psychiatric history, targeted clinical examination, and appropriate use of actigraphy to measure sleep duration and sleep-wake patterns, polysomnography to assess for associated conditions such as sleep-related breathing disorders or other factors that might disrupt nighttime sleep, multiple sleep latency testing to ascertain objective sleepiness and diagnose central disorders of hypersomnolence, and measurement of cerebrospinal fluid hypocretin-1 concentration. Treatment of EDS secondary to central disorders of hypersomnolence is primarily pharmacologic with wakefulness-promoting agents such as modafinil, stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, and newer agents specifically designed to improve wakefulness; behavioral interventions can provide a useful adjunct to pharmacologic treatment. When excessive sleepiness is secondary to other conditions, the treatment should focus on targeting the primary disorder. This review discusses current epidemiology, provides guidance on clinical assessments and testing, and discusses the latest treatment options. For this review, we collated the latest evidence using the search terms excessive sleepiness, hypersomnia, hypersomnolence, treatment from PubMed and MEDLINE and the latest practice parameters from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

To split or to lump? Classifying the central disorders of hypersomnolence

The classification of the central disorders of hypersomnolence has undergone multiple iterations in an attempt to capture biologically meaningful disease entities in the absence of known pathophysiology. Accumulating data suggests that further refinements may be necessary. At the 7th International Symposium on Narcolepsy, a group of clinician-scientists evaluated data in support of keeping or changing classifications, and as a result suggest several changes. First, idiopathic hypersomnia with long sleep durations appears to be an identifiable and meaningful disease subtype. Second, idiopathic hypersomnia without long sleep time and narcolepsy without cataplexy share substantial phenotypic overlap and cannot reliably be distinguished with current testing, and so combining them into a single disease entity seems warranted at present. Moving forward, it is critical to phenotype patients across a wide variety of clinical and biological features, to aid in future refinements of disease classification.

Idiopathic Hypersomnia and Other Hypersomnia Syndromes

There are numerous disorders of known or presumed neurologic origin that result in excessive daytime sleepiness, collectively known as the central disorders of hypersomnolence. These include narcolepsy types 1 and 2, idiopathic hypersomnia, Kleine-Levin syndrome, and hypersomnia due to or associated with medical disease, neurologic disease, psychiatric disease, medications or substances, and insufficient sleep durations. This chapter focuses on the treatment of nonnarcoleptic hypersomnia syndromes, from those that are commonly encountered in neurologic practice, such as hypersomnia due to Parkinson's disease, to those that are exceedingly rare but present with dramatic manifestations, such as Kleine-Levin syndrome. The level of evidence for the treatment of sleepiness in these disorders is generally lower than in the well-characterized syndrome of narcolepsy, but available clinical and randomized, controlled trial data can provide guidance for the management of each of these disorders. Treatments vary by diagnosis but may include modafinil/armodafinil, traditional psychostimulants, solriamfetol, pitolisant, clarithromycin, flumazenil, sodium oxybate, melatonin, methylprednisolone, and lithium.

Central Disorders of Hypersomnolence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses the central disorders of hypersomnolence, a group of disorders resulting in pathologic daytime sleepiness, particularly narcolepsy type 1 and narcolepsy type 2, idiopathic hypersomnia, and Kleine-Levin syndrome. Disease features, diagnostic testing, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence implicates autoimmunity in narcolepsy type 1, including a strong association with human leukocyte antigen-DQB1*06:02, association with a polymorphism in the T-cell receptor alpha locus in genome-wide association, and the identification of autoreactive T cells in patients with this type of narcolepsy. In contrast, the cause or causes of narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia are unknown. Multiple treatment options exist, including two medications approved for the treatment of narcolepsy by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019. These include solriamfetol, a dopamine- and norepinephrine-reuptake inhibitor, and pitolisant, an H3-inverse agonist/antagonist that increases histaminergic neurotransmission.

SUMMARY

The central disorders of hypersomnolence all cause severe sleepiness but can be differentiated based on ancillary symptoms, diagnostic testing, and pathophysiology. It is important that these disorders are identified because multiple treatments are available to improve functioning and quality of life.

Establishing the objective sleep phenotype in hypersomnolence disorder with and without comorbid major depression

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To clarify whether hypersomnolence disorder is associated with a specific sleep phenotype and altered neurophysiological function in persons with and without hypersomnolence disorder and major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Eighty-three unmedicated persons with and without hypersomnolence disorder and/or MDD underwent ad libitum high-density EEG polysomnography. Clinical and sleep architecture variables were compared between groups. Topographic patterns of slow-wave activity (SWA) relative to healthy controls were compared, with correlations between topographic SWA and daytime sleepiness assessed. Reductions in SWA in hypersomnolence disorder were mapped to specific cortical areas using source localization.

RESULTS

Regardless of the presence or absence of comorbid MDD, persons with hypersomnolence disorder had increased sleep duration relative to both controls and persons with MDD without hypersomnolence. Participants with hypersomnolence disorder also demonstrated reduced bilateral centroparietal low-frequency activity during nonrapid eye movement sleep relative to controls, a pattern not observed in persons with MDD but without hypersomnolence. SWA in these regions was negatively correlated with subjective measures of daytime sleepiness. Source localization demonstrated reductions in SWA in the supramarginal gyrus, somatosensory, and transverse temporal cortex in participants with hypersomnolence disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypersomnolence disorder is characterized by increased sleep duration with normal sleep continuity, regardless of the presence or absence of comorbid depression. Reduced local SWA may be a specific neurophysiological finding in hypersomnolence disorder. Further research is warranted to elucidate the mechanisms through which these cortical changes are related to clinical complaints of daytime sleepiness.

Measurement of symptoms in idiopathic hypersomnia

Objective

To validate the Idiopathic Hypersomnia Severity Scale (IIHSS), a self-report measure of hypersomnolence symptoms, consequences, and responsiveness to treatment.

Methods

The 14-item IHSS (developed and validated by sleep experts with patients' feedback) was filled in by 218 participants (2.3% missing data). Among the 210 participants who fully completed the IHSS, there were 57 untreated and 43 treated patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) aged 16 years or older, 37 untreated patients with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), and 73 controls without sleepiness. IHSS psychometric properties, discriminant diagnostic validity, and score changes with treatment were assessed.

Results

The IHSS showed good internal consistency and content validity. Factor analysis indicated a 2-component solution with good reliability expressed by satisfactory Cronbach α values. IHSS scores were reproducible without changes in the test–retest evaluation (13 treated and 14 untreated patients). Convergent validity analysis showed that IHSS score was correlated with daytime sleepiness, depressive symptoms, and quality of life in patients with IH. The IHSS score was lower in treated than untreated patients (5–8 unit difference, without ceiling effect). The cutoff value for discriminating between untreated and treated patients was 26/50 (sensitivity 55.8%, specificity 78.9%). IHSS scores were higher in drug-free IH patients than NT1 and controls. The best cutoff value to differentiate between untreated IH patients and controls was 22 (sensitivity 91.1%, specificity 94.5%), and 29 with NT1.

Conclusions

The IHSS is a reliable and valid clinical tool for the quantification of IH symptoms and consequences that might be useful for patient identification, follow-up, and management.