Efficacy and Tolerability of Armodafinil: Effect on Clinical Condition Late in the Shift and Overall Functioning of Patients With Excessive Sleepiness Associated With Shift Work Disorder

A scoping review of the evidence for the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on shift work related sleep disturbance in an occupational setting

Background: Shift work is essential in society but can be detrimental to health and quality of life and is associated with decreased productivity and increased risk of accidents. Interventions to reduce these consequences are needed, but the extent and range of trial evidence for interventions for those most affected by their shift-work schedules is unclear. We therefore carried out a scoping review to assess the availability of evidence to inform the development and evaluation of future interventions. Methods: We aimed to identify clinical trials of any intervention for shift work-related sleep disturbance that included a comparator group, where the intervention was delivered in an occupational setting. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and Science Citation Index from inception to 30 th March 2020 for relevant citations. Citations were screened by two independent reviewers, a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results: From 1250 unique citations, 14 studies met inclusion criteria for comparative trials of treatment in an occupational setting. There were five trials of hypnotics, five trials of stimulants, and four trials of non-pharmacological therapies (cognitive behavioural therapy, light therapy, aromatherapy and herbal medicine). Outcomes included sleep parameters, day-time sleepiness, and quality of life. There were no consistently reported outcomes across trials. Conclusions: Interventions fell into three distinct groups investigated in distinct time periods without progression from efficacy trials to wider-scale interventions. The lack of consistent patient-reported outcome measures limits synthesising findings. Some trials focussed on optimising sleep, others on reducing wake-time sleepiness. Adequately powered trials of existing interventions are needed, with the development and testing of novel combination treatments in patients with well-defined shift work sleep disorder. A core set of clinically relevant outcomes will develop and standardise the evidence-base for shift work sleep disorder.

A scoping review of the evidence for the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on shift work related sleep disturbance in an occupational setting

Background: Shift work is essential in society but can be detrimental to health and quality of life and is associated with decreased productivity and increased risk of accidents. Interventions to reduce these consequences are needed, but the extent and range of trial evidence for interventions for those most affected by their shift-work schedules is unclear. We therefore carried out a scoping review to assess the availability of evidence to inform the development and evaluation of future interventions. Methods: We aimed to identify clinical trials of any intervention for shift work-related sleep disturbance that included a comparator group, where the intervention was delivered in an occupational setting. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and Science Citation Index from inception to 30th March 2020 for relevant citations. Citations were screened by two independent reviewers, a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results: From 1250 unique citations, 14 studies met inclusion criteria for comparative trials of treatment in an occupational setting. There were five trials of hypnotics, five trials of stimulants, and four trials of non-pharmacological therapies (cognitive behavioural therapy, light therapy, aromatherapy and herbal medicine). Outcomes included sleep parameters, day-time sleepiness, and quality of life. There were no consistently reported outcomes across trials. Conclusions: Interventions fell into three distinct groups investigated in distinct time periods without progression from efficacy trials to wider-scale interventions. The lack of consistent patient-reported outcome measures limits synthesising findings. Some trials focussed on optimising sleep, others on reducing wake-time sleepiness. Adequately powered trials of existing interventions are needed, with the development and testing of novel combination treatments in patients with well-defined shift work sleep disorder. A core set of clinically relevant outcomes will develop and standardise the evidence-base for shift work sleep disorder.

Circadian Rhythm Sleep-Wake Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides an overview of circadian physiology and discusses common presentations and treatment strategies for the circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Circadian rhythms are present throughout the body, and appreciation for the role that circadian dysregulation plays in overall health is increasing, with mounting associations between circadian disruption and cardiometabolic disease risk.

SUMMARY

It is important to recognize the ubiquitous role that circadian rhythms play throughout the brain and body. An understanding of circadian neurophysiology will provide insight into the means by which patients with a variety of neuropathologies at the level of the retina, optic nerve, or hypothalamus may also be at risk for circadian dysfunction.

Excessive sleepiness in shift work disorder: a narrative review of the last 5 years

INTRODUCTION

Shift work sleep disorder (SWSD), also known as shift work disorder (SWD), is a circadian rhythm sleep disorder characterized by insomnia and/or excessive sleepiness, associated with a recurring work schedule that overlaps the usual time designated for sleeping.

PURPOSE

This article aims to provide a narrative review of the pharmacological trials conducted on SWD in the last 5 years, to better address safety and health issues inherent to this disorder.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs with employees undertaking shift work (including night shifts) were considered, yielding three articles.

RESULTS

All three studies showed the efficacy of armodafinil in improving subjective and objective sleepiness, clinical conditions, and global functioning regardless of shift duration. Both performance and driving simulator performance tests administered during the night shift bore better results following armodafinil administration than after placebo. However, armodafinil only reduced subjective disability in individuals working more than 9 h; furthermore, even after armodafinil, alertness was reduced but not normalized.

CONCLUSION

These studies underscore the importance of preventing and/or minimizing disturbances due to shift work. This may be achieved through various strategies, such as the employer's commitment to adopt ergonomic criteria in shift design and to implement work-environment interventions like controlled bright light. Health personnel is of pivotal importance to detect potential factors of intolerance to shift work or early symptoms of SWD. Additional and improved studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Shift Work Disorder

Shift work and its negative consequences are becoming more relevant as the economy becomes increasing globalized. For many individuals, shift work serves as a significant biological and psychosocial challenge leading to Shift Work Disorder (SWD). Beyond the symptoms of sleep and excessive sleepiness, the range of consequences for health and daily functioning in those with SWD are reviewed, along with evidence-based recommendations for clinical management, including comprehensive clinical assessments and intervention strategies that target multiple domains through pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic methods. A review of important recent scientific and technological developments for assessment and intervention is also provided.

Effects of armodafinil on simulated driving and alertness in shift work disorder

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Forty-one percent of shift workers report dozing while driving. This study tested whether armodafinil improves driving simulator performance in subjects with shift work disorder (SWD). A primary outcome was performance late in the shift when workers are typically driving home.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, crossover. During each 12-h test session (21:30-09:30), subjects were kept awake except for multiple sleep latency testing (MSLT: 01:30, 03:30, 05:30, and 07:30). Subjective sleepiness (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, KSS), driving performance, and cognitive performance (digit symbol substitution test and creativity on the Remote Associates Test, RAT) were evaluated during the night shift and commute home times.

SETTING

Hospital-based sleep research laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty night workers (age: 42.7 ± 8.7 y, 17 F) with excessive sleepiness (≥ 10 on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale), meeting International Classification of Sleep Disorders, Second Edition (ICSD-2) criteria for SWD, and having no other medical conditions.

INTERVENTIONS

Armodafinil (150 mg) or placebo at (23:45 h) on counterbalanced nights separated by 7-14 days.

MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS

Primary endpoints were driving simulator performance (standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) and off-road deviations) with four sessions starting 3.25 h after drug administration, objective sleepiness (MSLT; 1.75 to 7.75 h post-drug), and creativity (5 h post-drug). Significant effects of drug were observed for each driving measure (P < 0.05). Armodafinil significantly improved SDLP for simulator sessions at 05:30, 07:30, and 09:30, and off-road deviations at 7 h, 15 min and 9 h, 15 min post-drug (P < 0.05). Armodafinil also improved objective sleepiness from 3.7 ± 0.6 min to 9.7 ± 5.2 min (P < 0.001) and RAT score from 8.75 ± 4.9 to 11.25 ± 6.0 (P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Armodafinil 150 mg early in the night shift improves driving simulator performance in SWD. Effects on sleepiness, cognition, and driving were found up to 9.5 h post-ingestion, during the critical time when many night workers are driving home.

Armodafinil for the treatment of excessive sleepiness associated with mild or moderate closed traumatic brain injury: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind study followed by a 12-month open-label extension

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of armodafinil in patients with excessive sleepiness following mild or moderate closed traumatic brain injury (TBI).

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial followed by open-label extension.

SETTING

40 US centers.

PATIENTS

Adults with closed TBI (N = 117), Glasgow Coma Scale score >8 at time of injury; baseline Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) ≥10; sleep latency <8 minutes on multiple sleep latency test (MSLT); and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score ≥4 for excessive sleepiness.

INTERVENTION

Patients received armodafinil (50, 150, or 250 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks followed by an optional 12-month open-label extension.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Outcomes included MSLT, ESS, Clinical Global Impression-Change (CGI-C), TBI-Work Instability Scale (TBI-WIS), CGI-S, and tolerability. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment. Patients receiving 250 mg armodafinil showed significant improvement in sleep latency from baseline to final visit versus placebo (+7.2 minutes vs. +2.4 minutes; p = 0.0010). CGI-C ratings were much/ very much improved in approximately 50% of patients receiving 150 and 250 mg armodafinil, compared to 38% on placebo. ESS and TBI-WIS scores were not significantly different between groups. In the open-label extension (N = 49), patients demonstrated gradual improvement in ESS, TBI-WIS, and CGI-S scores up to 48 weeks post-baseline. Armodafinil was generally well tolerated, with headache the most common adverse event in both double-blind and open-label portions.

CONCLUSIONS

Armodafinil 250 mg significantly improved sleep latency in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with mild or moderate TBI. Efficacy and tolerability of armodafinil were sustained throughout the open-label extension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00893789, NCT00983437.

Evaluation of the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between armodafinil and carbamazepine in healthy adults

PURPOSE

Polypharmacy is common in psychiatry practice and can lead to an increased risk of drug interactions. Armodafinil, a wakefulness-promoting agent, has been studied as adjunctive therapy for the treatment of major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. Armodafinil and the mood stabilizer carbamazepine are both inducers of and substrates for cytochrome P450 (CYP3A4). This study was designed to evaluate the bidirectional carbamazepine-armodafinil pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single-center study conducted in healthy adult men. Subjects assigned to group 1 received a dose of carbamazepine (200 mg) alone and a dose after pretreatment with daily dosing of armodafinil (titrated to 250 mg/d). Subjects assigned to group 2 received a dose of armodafinil (250 mg) alone and a dose after pretreatment with carbamazepine BID (titrated to 400 mg/d). Pharmacokinetic parameters for carbamazepine, armodafinil, and their major circulating metabolites were determined when dosed alone and after pretreatment with the other drug. The safety and tolerability of armodafinil and carbamazepine were also assessed throughout the study.

FINDINGS

Eighty-one subjects enrolled in the study (group 1 = 40; group 2 = 41), of whom 79 (group 1 = 40; group 2 = 39) were evaluable for pharmacokinetic analysis and 80 (group 1 = 40; group 2 = 40) were evaluable for safety analysis. In group 1, pretreatment with armodafinil reduced systemic exposure to carbamazepine by 12% for Cmax and 25% for AUC (based on comparison of geometric means). Similarly, in group 2, pretreatment with carbamazepine reduced systemic exposure to armodafinil by 11% for Cmax and 37% for AUC. Systemic exposure to the metabolites of these agents that are formed via CYP3A4 were increased after pretreatment in each group. There were no new or unexpected adverse events.

IMPLICATIONS

Systemic exposure to both carbamazepine and armodafinil was reduced after pretreatment with the other drug; systemic exposure to the metabolites of each drug, which are formed via CYP3A4, was increased. These changes were consistent with the induction of CYP3A4. Both drugs were generally safe and well tolerated alone and in combination under the conditions studied. Dose adjustment may be required when initiating or discontinuing armodafinil and carbamazepine cotherapy.

Pharmacological interventions for sleepiness and sleep disturbances caused by shift work

BACKGROUND

Shift work results in sleep-wake disturbances, which cause sleepiness during night shifts and reduce sleep length and quality in daytime sleep after the night shift. In its serious form it is also called shift work sleep disorder. Various pharmacological products are used to ameliorate symptoms of sleepiness or poor sleep length and quality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of pharmacological interventions to reduce sleepiness or to improve alertness at work and decrease sleep disturbances whilst off work, or both, in workers undertaking shift work in their present job and to assess their cost-effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and PsycINFO up to 20 September 2013 and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2013. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over RCTs, of pharmacological products among workers who were engaged in shift work (including night shifts) in their present jobs and who may or may not have had sleep problems. Primary outcomes were sleep length and sleep quality while off work, alertness and sleepiness, or fatigue at work.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 randomised placebo-controlled trials with 718 participants. Nine trials evaluated the effect of melatonin and two the effect of hypnotics for improving sleep problems. One trial assessed the effect of modafinil, two of armodafinil and one examined caffeine plus naps to decrease sleepiness or to increase alertness.Melatonin (1 to 10 mg) after the night shift may increase sleep length during daytime sleep (mean difference (MD) 24 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8 to 38.9; seven trials, 263 participants, low quality evidence) and night-time sleep (MD 17 minutes, 95% CI 3.71 to 30.22; three trials, 234 participants, low quality evidence) compared to placebo. We did not find a dose-response effect. Melatonin may lead to similar sleep latency times as placebo (MD 0.37minutes, 95% CI - 1.55 to 2.29; five trials, 74 participants, low quality evidence).Hypnotic medication, zopiclone, did not result in significantly longer daytime sleep length compared to placebo in one low quality trial and we could not use the data from the study on lormetazepam.Armodafinil taken before the night shift probably reduces sleepiness by one point on the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.67; range 1 to 10; two trials, 572 participants, moderate quality evidence) and increases alertness by 50 ms in a simple reaction time test (MD -50.0, 95% CI -85.5 to -15.5) at three months' follow-up in shift work sleep disorder patients. Modafinil probably has similar effects on sleepiness (KSS) (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.35; one trial, 183 participants, moderate quality evidence) and alertness in the psychomotor vigilance test in the same patient group. Post-marketing, severe skin reactions have been reported. Adverse effects reported by trial participants were headache, nausea and a rise in blood pressure. There were no trials in non-patient shift workers.Based on one trial, caffeine plus pre-shift naps taken before the night shift decreased sleepiness (KSS) (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.17).We judged most trials to have a low risk of bias even though the randomisation method and allocation concealment were often not described.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence that melatonin improves sleep length after a night shift but not other sleep quality parameters. Both modafinil and armodafinil increase alertness and reduce sleepiness to some extent in employees who suffer from shift work sleep disorder but they are associated with adverse events. Caffeine plus naps reduces sleepiness during the night shift, but the quality of evidence is low. Based on one low quality trial, hypnotics did not improve sleep length and quality after a night shift.We need more and better quality trials on the beneficial and adverse effects and costs of all pharmacological agents that induce sleep or promote alertness in shift workers both with and without a diagnosis of shift work sleep disorder. We also need systematic reviews of their adverse effects.

Evaluation of the potential for a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between armodafinil and ziprasidone in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Armodafinil has been studied as adjunctive therapy for major depressive episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. This open-label, single-centre, 2-period study evaluated the effect of armodafinil, a moderate inducer of cytochrome-P450 (CYP) isoenzyme CYP3A4, on the pharmacokinetics and safety of ziprasidone, an atypical antipsychotic used to treat bipolar I disorder and metabolized in part by CYP3A4.

METHODS

Thirty-five healthy subjects received ziprasidone (20 mg) alone and after armodafinil pretreatment (titrated to 250 mg/day); of those, 25 were evaluable for pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic parameters were derived from plasma concentrations of ziprasidone collected prior to and over the 48 h after each ziprasidone administration. Plasma concentrations of armodafinil and its circulating metabolites, R-modafinil acid and modafinil sulfone, were also obtained after repeated daily dosing of armodafinil alone. Safety and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

Systemic exposure to ziprasidone was similar following administration alone or after pretreatment with armodafinil, as assessed by mean peak plasma concentration (C max, 52.1 vs 50.4 ng/mL) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞, 544.6 vs 469.1 ng·h/mL). Geometric mean ratios of systemic exposure (ziprasidone alone: ziprasidone after pretreatment with armodafinil) were close to unity, with associated 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) within the range of 0.80-1.25 (C max, 0.97; 90 % CI, 0.87-1.08; AUC0-∞, 0.86; 90 % CI, 0.82-0.91). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent.

CONCLUSION

Systemic exposure to ziprasidone was not affected by pretreatment with armodafinil. Both drugs were generally safe and well tolerated under the conditions studied.

The impact of shift duration on the efficacy and tolerability of armodafinil in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with shift work disorder

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of night-shift duration (≤9 hours or >9 hours) on efficacy and tolerability of armodafinil in patients with shift work disorder (SWD).

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a 6 week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Shift workers with diagnosed SWD and late-in-shift sleepiness (between 4 am and 8 am, including the commute home) received armodafinil 150 mg or placebo before their night shift.

RESULTS

Proportion of patients with at least minimal improvement in late-in-shift sleepiness, late-in-shift Clinical Global Impressions-Change (CGI-C) rating and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS), as well as overall Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale and modified Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS-M), were assessed at baseline and final visit.

RESULTS

Of the 383 patients enrolled, 279 (73%) worked shifts ≤9 hours and 104 (27%) worked shifts >9 hours. A greater percentage of patients receiving armodafinil had at least minimal improvement in late-in-shift CGI-C (≤9 hours: 78% vs 60%, P = 0.0017; >9 hours: 77% vs 46%, P = 0.0020) regardless of shift duration. Armodafinil patients also demonstrated significantly greater improvements in GAF score (≤9 hours: 9.5 vs 5.4, P < 0.0001; >9 hours: 9.6 vs 4.3, P = 0.0019) and KSS score (≤9 hours: -2.9 vs -1.9, P = 0.0002; >9 hours: -2.8 vs -1.6, P = 0.00 28). Improvement in SDS-M composite score was significantly greater for armodafinil patients working >9 hours (-6.8 vs -2.7, P = 0.0086). Headache was the most frequent adverse event in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving armodafinil had significantly greater improvements in late-in-shift clinical condition and in wakefulness and overall global functioning than did placebo-treated patients, regardless of shift duration. Prospectively designed, randomized clinical trials that include objective measures of sleepiness are needed to support these findings.

Twisting the night away: a review of the neurobiology, genetics, diagnosis, and treatment of shift work disorder

Although not all individuals who work outside of standard daytime hours develop physical and psychiatric issues, there is a substantial portion of shift workers who develop shift work disorder. Shift work disorder is due to a misalignment between an individual's endogenous circadian rhythms and environmental stimuli, and can have potentially serious consequences to an individual's health and quality of life. This article reviews the neurobiological and genetic underpinnings of shift work disorder, and describes how desynchronization of the molecular clock may lead to both physical and psychiatric illnesses. Diagnostic tools and treatment guidelines to address the circadian misalignment, excessive sleepiness, and insomnia experienced by patients with shift work disorder are also discussed.

The effect of armodafinil on patient-reported functioning and quality of life in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with shift work disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether treatment with armodafinil for 6 weeks affected patient-reported overall functioning and daily quality of life compared with placebo in patients with excessive sleepiness associated with shift work disorder.

METHOD

This 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in 45 sleep centers across the United States between February and October 2010. Patients included in the study were 18 to 65 years of age and diagnosed with excessive sleepiness associated with shift work disorder on the basis of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders: Diagnostic and Coding Manual, Second Edition and DSM-IV-TR criteria. These patients also experienced late-in-shift sleepiness between 4 AM and 8 AM (Karolinska Sleepiness Scale score ≥ 6) and were functionally impaired (Global Assessment of Functioning score < 70). Patients were administered 150 mg of armodafinil or placebo on nights worked, and efficacy measures included changes in patient-reported overall functioning (modified Sheehan Disability Scale [SDS-M]) and daily quality of life (10-question Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire [FOSQ-10]).

RESULTS

Patients treated with armodafinil had significantly greater improvement in SDS-M composite scores at final visit (last observation carried forward) (-6.8 vs -4.5, respectively, P = .0027) than those receiving placebo. Although the armodafinil group, compared to the placebo group, showed a greater improvement in total FOSQ-10 score from baseline to final visit (+3.4 vs +2.7, respectively, P = .0775), a statistically significant improvement was observed only at week 6 (+3.6 vs +2.7, respectively, P = .0351).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings are consistent with our previous report on clinician-rated measures of efficacy by demonstrating that armodafinil improves patient-rated functioning in patients with shift work disorder. Additionally, the current findings show for the first time that armodafinil may have benefits on quality of life after 6 weeks of treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01080807.