Here, we provided a tentative guide for the use of drugs for insomnia in children with NDDs. Well-controlled studies employing both objective polysomnography and subjective sleep measures are needed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the currently prescribed pediatric sleep medicines in children with NDDs.

Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol vs. i.v. ibuprofen for the treatment of hemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm infants. This is a multicenter randomized controlled study. Infants with a gestational age of 25 +0-31 +6 weeks were randomized to receive i.v. paracetamol (15 mg/kg/6 h for 3 days) or i.v. ibuprofen (10-5-5 mg/kg/day). The primary outcome was the closure rate of hsPDA after the first treatment course with paracetamol or ibuprofen. Secondary outcomes included the constriction rate of hsPDA, the reopening rate, and the need for surgical closure. Fifty-two and 49 infants received paracetamol or ibuprofen, respectively. Paracetamol was less effective in closing hsPDA than ibuprofen (52 vs. 78%; P = 0.026), but the constriction rate of the ductus was similar (81 vs. 90%; P = 0.202), as confirmed by logistic regression analysis. The reopening rate, the need for surgical closure, and the occurrence of adverse effects were also similar. Conclusions: Intravenous paracetamol was less effective in closing hsPDA than ibuprofen, but due to a similar constriction effect, its use was associated with the same hsPDA outcome. These results can support the use of i.v. paracetamol as a first-choice drug for the treatment of hsPDA.

No abstract

There is a paucity of clinical trials for the treatment of pediatric insomnia. This study was designed to predict the doses of trazodone to guide dosing in a clinical trial for pediatric insomnia using physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. Data on the pharmacokinetics of trazodone in children are currently lacking. The interaction potential between trazodone and atomoxetine was also predicted. Doses predicted in the following age groups, with exposures corresponding to adult dosages of 30, 75, and 150 mg once a day (q.d.), respectively, were: (i) 2‐ to 6‐year‐old group, doses of 0.35, 0.8, and 1.6 mg/kg q.d.; (ii) >6‐ to 12‐year‐old group, doses of 0.4, 1.0, and 1.9 mg/kg q.d.; (iii) >12‐ to 17‐year‐old group, doses of 0.4, 1.1, and 2.1 mg/kg q.d. An interaction between trazodone and atomoxetine was predicted to be unlikely. Clinical trials based on the aforementioned predicted dosing are currently in progress, and pharmacokinetic data obtained will enable further refinement of the PBPK models.

This study evaluated the effect of 3 doses of a trazodone hydrochloride 6% oral drops solution on the QT interval of healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of trazodone 20 mg, 60 mg, and 140 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and trazodone-matched placebo in 5 periods separated by 7-day washouts, according to a double-blind, crossover study design. Subjects were monitored continuously, and triplicate ECGs were extracted from baseline (predose) until 24 hours postdose. Blood samples for trazodone and moxifloxacin analyses were collected at the same time points. The concentration-QTc relationship assessed on placebo-adjusted change from baseline for Fridericia-corrected QT (QTcF) was the primary end point. QTcF values of 4.5, 12.3, and 19.8 ms for the 20-, 60-, and 140-mg doses were observed at the corresponding trazodone peak plasma concentrations. The upper bound of the 90%CI exceeded 10 ms for the 60-and the 140-mg doses. Time-matched analysis results were in line with these findings. No significant trazodone effect on heart rate or PR or QRS intervals and no clinically significant new morphological changes were present. In this moxifloxacin-validated ECG trial, trazodone had a modest, dose-dependent effect on cardiac repolarization, with no QTc prolongation observed with the 20-mg dose and an effect exceeding the values set in E14 guideline with the 60-and 140-mg doses. The effect on cardiac repolarization is unlikely to represent a clinical risk for ventricular proarrhythmia, but caution should be used with concomitant use of other medications that prolong QT or increase trazodone exposure.

Purpose The primary objectives were to describe weight changes following initiation of lurasidone versus other antipsychotics and estimate the risk of clinically relevant (≥7%) weight changes. Patients and Methods This retrospective, longitudinal comparative cohort study was based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of United States (US) adult patients with schizophrenia who were prescribed lurasidone or other antipsychotics as monotherapy between 1 April 2013 and 30 June 2019. Results Overall, the study included 15,323 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia; 6.1% of patients received lurasidone, 60.4% received antipsychotics associated with a medium-high risk of weight gain (clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, paliperidone) and 33.5% received antipsychotics with a low risk of weight gain (aripiprazole, first-generation antipsychotics, ziprasidone). Lurasidone was associated with the smallest proportion of patients experiencing clinically relevant weight gain and the greatest proportion of patients with clinically relevant weight loss. The risk of clinically relevant weight gain was numerically higher with all antipsychotics versus lurasidone and was statistically significant for olanzapine (hazard ratio [HR]=1.541; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.121; 2.119; p=0.0078) versus lurasidone. The likelihood of ≥7% weight loss was significantly greater with lurasidone versus all antipsychotics (p<0.05), except ziprasidone. Conclusion This real-world study suggests that lurasidone has a lower risk of clinically relevant weight gain and a higher likelihood of clinically relevant weight loss than other commonly used antipsychotics.

No abstract

Background Painful diabetic neuropathy is an important therapeutic challenge as the efficacy of analgesic drugs in this setting is still unsatisfactory. Monotherapy with available treatments is often not sufficient and a combination of drugs is necessary. Trazodone (TRZ) is a compound with a multi-modal mechanism of action, being a serotonin-2 antagonist/reuptake inhibitor developed and approved for the treatment of depression in several countries. Previous clinical trials suggest a possible beneficial effect of low doses of trazodone for the treatment of patients affected by painful diabetic neuropathy. Objective This phase II study was designed to collect data on the efficacy and safety of low doses of TRZ combined with gabapentin after 8 weeks of treatment in patients affected by painful diabetic neuropathy. Methods This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, international, prospective study. Male and female diabetic patients aged 18-75 years and affected by painful diabetic neuropathy were eligible for enrollment. Subjects were randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to TRZ30 (10 mg three times daily for 8 weeks) or TRZ60 (20 mg three times daily for 8 weeks) or placebo. Gabapentin as background therapy was administered in open-label conditions to all patients. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline of the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form item 5 to week 8. Secondary endpoints included the other Brief Pain Inventory Short Form items, and the assessment of anxiety, sleep, quality of life, patient's improvement, and safety. Results One hundred and forty-one patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 43 allocated to the TRZ30 group, 50 to the TRZ60 group, and 48 to the placebo group. After 8 weeks, the mean changes of Brief Pain Inventory Short Form item 5 from baseline were − 3.1, − 2.6, and − 2.5 in the TRZ30, TRZ60, and placebo groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences between groups were seen. Nevertheless, a better trend was observed for TRZ30 vs placebo (95% confidence interval − 1.30, 0.15; p = 0.1179), on top of the background effect of gabapentin administered to all study groups. 62.8% of patients achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in the TRZ30 group, 54% in the TRZ60 group, and 45.8% in the placebo group. At the same time, a statistically significant improvement was observed in Brief Pain Inventory Short Form item 6 for TRZ30 vs placebo (95% confidence interval − 1.54, − 0.07; p = 0.0314). No serious adverse event occurred during the trial and the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events involved nervous system, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal disorders. Conclusions All treatment groups showed a clinically meaningful pain improvement; nevertheless, patients in the TRZ30 treatment group reported better efficacy outcomes. This finding suggests that low doses of TRZ could be useful for treating painful diabetic neuropathy, and support further adequately powered confirmatory trials investigating the efficacy of TRZ. Clinical Trial Registratio...