An explorative approach to understanding individual differences in driving performance and neurocognition in long-term benzodiazepine users

Effects of solriamfetol on on-the-road driving in participants with narcolepsy: A randomised crossover trial

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, 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.

Effects of solriamfetol on on-the-road driving performance in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnoea

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 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.

Comparing objective wakefulness and vigilance tests to on-the-road driving performance in narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia

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 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 (ρ = −0.41 to −0.49, p < 0.01). The SART and PVT had low correlations with SDLP (ρ = 0.30 and ρ = 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.