OBJECTIVE: Dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) are emerging treatments for insomnia. This meta-analysis study aimed to assess the safety of FDA-approved DORAs (suvorexant, lemborexant, and daridorexant), focusing on narcolepsy-like symptoms associated with these drugs.
METHODS: Five prominent databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. Primary safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment-related TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and serious TEAEs. Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), sleep paralysis, and hallucinations were categorized as adverse events (AEs)-related narcolepsy-like symptoms.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with 7703 patients were included. DORAs were associated with a higher risk of TEAEs (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.15) and treatment-related TEAEs (RR, 1.69; 95% CI: 1.49 to 1.92) when compared to placebo. The DORA group exhibited a significantly higher risk of EDS (RR, 2.15; 95% CI: 1.02 to 4.52) and sleep paralysis (RR, 3.40; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.80) compared to the placebo group.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis achieved a comparative evaluation of the clinical safety and tolerability of FDA-approved DORAs for primary insomnia, specifically focusing on AEs-related narcolepsy-like symptoms. This study contributes to understanding the safety profile of FDA-approved DORAs for treating insomnia.

To assess the efficacy and safety of Aβ-targeting agents for mild to moderate Alzheimer\'s disease.
The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO\'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were searched from their inception to April 2020. We generated pooled estimates using random effects meta-analyses.
Nineteen randomised controlled trials, of which 17 had a low risk of bias, included 12 903 participants. The meta-analysis showed no difference in the cognitive subscale of Alzheimer\'s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) between anti-Aβ drugs and placebo (mean difference (MD): 0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.81; I 2=99.8%; minimal important difference 3.1-3.8 points, moderate-certainty evidence). For ADAS-Cog, results suggested that one drug that increases Aβ clearance may differ in effect (MD: -0.96, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.92) from drugs that reduce Aβ production (MD: 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32) (interaction p<0.000001); this difference also existed in the outcome of MMSE and CDR-SOB. Compared with placebo, anti-Aβ drug-related adverse events were as follows: anxiety, depression, diarrhoea, fatigue, rash, syncope and vomit.
From current evidence, anti-Aβ interventions are unlikely to have an important impact on slowing cognitive or functional decline. Although the subgroup analysis suggested possible benefits from Aβ clearance drugs, the analysis has limited credibility, and a benefit from drugs that increase clearance, if real, is very small.
PROSPERO registration number CRD42019126272.

We conducted a random-effects model network meta-analysis to examine differences between lemborexant and suvorexant in efficacy and safety outcomes for treating patients with insomnia. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL from their inception until April/28/2020. Primary outcomes were subjective time to sleep onset (sTSO), subjective total sleep time (sTST), and subjective wake-after-sleep onset (sWASO) at week 1. Four double-blind, randomized controlled trials were identified (n = 3237; 72.4% female; mean age 58.0 years). The treatment arm consisted of lemborexant 10 mg/d (LEM10, n = 592), lemborexant 5 mg/d (LEM5, n = 589), suvorexant 20/15 mg/d (SUV20/15, n = 493), zolpidem tartrate extended release 6.25 mg/d (ZOL6.25, n = 263), and placebo (n = 1300). All active treatments outperformed placebo regarding sTSO at week 1; standardized mean differences (95% credible interval): LEM10 = -0.51 (-0.63, -0.39), LEM5 = -0.48 (-0.60, -0.36), SUV20/15 = -0.21 (-0.33, -0.10), and ZOL6.25 = -0.30 (-0.46, -0.14); sTST at week 1: LEM10 = -0.58 (-0.70, -0.45), LEM5 = -0.33 (-0.46, -0.21), SUV20/15 = -0.34 (-0.46, -0.23), and ZOL6.25 = -0.42 (-0.59, -0.25); and sWASO at week 1: LEM10 = -0.42 (-0.57, -0.28), LEM5 = -0.26 (-0.40, -0.11), SUV20/15 = -0.18 (-0.32, -0.05), and ZOL6.25 = -0.37 (-0.56, -0.18). Although no significant differences were found in discontinuation due to adverse events between each active drug and placebo, LEM10 and SUV20/15 were associated with greater somnolence compared with placebo. LEM10 had the largest effect size compared with placebo for all primary outcomes, although with a risk of somnolence.

Orexin receptor antagonists are a relatively new hypnotic principle. Their influence on human sleep architecture is a point of debate that has not been systematically evaluated. Thus, we performed a systematic review to assess how these compounds effect sleep architecture in healthy and clinical human samples. Relevant articles were identified via searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and clinicaltrials. gov. From 1147 retrieved records, 18 satisfied inclusion criteria and formed the basis of this review. Of these, fifteen studies administered dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORA) in a healthy control (five studies) or clinical sample (ten studies). By contrast, three studies administered selective orexin receptor-2 antagonists (2-SORA) in either a healthy control (one study) or clinical sample (two studies). Results reveal DORAs increase total sleep time primarily by promoting REM sleep, without affecting, or even decreasing, non-REM sleep, especially in clinical samples. Therefore, the clinical utility of DORAs may depend on the specific sample being treated. For 2-SORAs, limited evidence available precludes firm conclusions about their influence on human sleep architecture and, thus, further investigation of 2-SORAs is required to define their effects and make comparisons on this basis with DORAs.

To assess the efficacy and safety of suvorexant for the prevention of delirium during acute hospitalization.
Pubmed (1946 to December 2019) and Embase (1947 to December 2019) were queried using the search term combination: delirium, confusion, cognitive defect, encephalopathy, critically ill patient, critical illness, or hospitalization and suvorexant or orexin receptor antagonist. Studies analyzed for relevance evaluated clinical outcomes of patients treated with suvorexant for prevention of delirium. Studies appropriate to the objective were evaluated, including two randomized controlled trials and four retrospective studies.
In acutely hospitalized patients, treatment with suvorexant 15 to 20 mg alone or in combination with ramelteon resulted in a reduction in development of delirium, time until delirium onset, and length of hospital stay. When assessed, suvorexant was well tolerated and adverse effects were no worse than placebo.
Based on the reviewed literature, suvorexant has shown positive outcomes in the prevention of delirium during an acute hospitalization. Larger trials comparing the efficacy of suvorexant to other sleep modulating options are necessary to further delineate its role for the prevention of delirium.

Sleep plays an important role in the recovery of critically ill patients. However, patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often suffer sleep disturbances and abnormal circadian rhythms, which may increase delirium and lengthen ICU stay. Nonpharmacologic strategies for preventing and treating sleep disturbances and delirium, such as overnight eye masks and ear plugs, are usually employed first, given the lack of adverse effects. However, a multimodal approach to care including pharmacotherapy may be necessary. Despite the limited available data supporting their use, medications such as melatonin, ramelteon, suvorexant, and dexmedetomidine may promote sleep and improve a variety of patient-centric outcomes such as delirium. This narrative review focuses on these nonbenzodiazepine agents used for sleep in the ICU. Practical application of each of these agents is described for when providers choose to utilize one of these pharmacotherapies to promote sleep or prevent delirium.

1,4-Diazepines are two nitrogen containing seven membered heterocyclic compounds and associated with a wide range of biological activities. Due to its medicinal importance, scientists are actively involved in the synthesis, reactions and biological evaluation of 1,4-diazepines since number of decades.
The primary purpose of this review is to discuss the synthetic schemes and reactivity of 1,4- diazepines. This article also describes biological aspects of 1,4-diazepine derivatives, that can be usefully exploited for the pharmaceutical sector.
This review summarizes the abundant literature on synthetic routes, chemical reactions and biological attributes of 1,4-diazepine derivatives. We concluded that 1,4-diazepines have significant importance due to their biological activities like antipsychotic, anxiolytic, anthelmintic, anticonvulsant, antibacterial, antifungal and anticancer. 1,4-diazepine derivatives with significant biological activities could be explored for potential use in the pharmaceutical industries.

Bacterial conjunctivitis has high impact on the health of the population, since it represents more than a third of ocular pathologies reported by health services worldwide. There is a high incidence of bacterial resistance to the antimicrobials most commonly used for the treatment of conjunctivitis. In this context, besifloxacin stands out, since it is a fluoroquinolone developed exclusively for topical ophthalmic use, presenting a low risk of developing resistance due to its reduced systemic exposure. Bausch & Lomb markets it as ophthalmic suspension, under the trade name Besivance™. Literature review on besifloxacin is presented, covering its pharmaceutical and clinical characteristics, and the analytical methods used to measure the drug in pharmaceutical products and biological samples. High performance liquid chromatography is the most used method for this purpose. A discussion on Green Chemistry is also presented, focusing the importance of the development of green analytical methods for the analysis of drugs.

BACKGROUND: Aurora kinases are essential mediators in cell mitosis. Amplification of these kinases can lead to the development of malignancy and may be associated with inferior survival. Alisertib is an oral aurora kinase inhibitor which has been shown to induce cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis in preclinical studies. It is currently under investigation for a wide variety of malignancies including hematologic (specifically Non-Hodgkin\'s lymphoma) and solid tumors. Areas covered: A PubMed search was performed to identify clinical studies reporting outcomes with alisertib. Promising results are notable in patients with peripheral T cell lymphoma in particular, forming the basis for the first phase 3 randomized trial of alisertib. Although it did show encouraging response rates, it failed to demonstrate superiority over the comparator arm at an interim analysis, halting further enrollment. Expert opinion: Despite disappointing early results, alisertib remains under investigation in a number of cancer types both as monotherapy and in combination with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, with encouraging results. Most common toxicities in early trials include myelosuppression alopecia, mucositis and fatigue. The relatively manageable toxicity profile of alisertib along with ease of dosing may allow it to be combined with other oral agents or traditional chemotherapy across a wide variety of malignancy types.

BACKGROUND: Many current anticancer chemotherapeutics suffer from significant side effects, which have led to the exploration of more targeted therapies. This resulted in the exploration of inhibitors of Aurora A kinase as a potential anti-cancer treatment. Alisertib (MLN8237) has proven to be a potent Aurora A kinase inhibitor that had the highest safety profile among its therapeutic family. Phase I/II/III clinical trials with Alisertib have been carried out and reported promising efficacy, yet serious side effects. This article attempts to assess the clinical effect of Alisertib administration in various cancer phenotypes while describing the reported side effects.
METHODS: Alisertib clinical data were systematically retrieved from Medline, CINAHL, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and analyzed for quality, relevance, and originality in three stages prior to inclusion.
RESULTS: Overall, seven studies met inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 630 patients. The reported \"potential\" clinical effect of Alisertib in various tumours is promising as it improved time to disease progression, progression-free survival, and the duration of disease stability. The achieved improvement therefore rationalizes its further investigation as a novel anticancer therapy. However, the administration of the drug was associated with serious haematological disturbances in a relatively high percentage of patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence of the anti-tumour effect of Alisertib administration is compelling in various types of malignancies. The reported side effects were serious but manageable in many cases. Topical or more targeted routes of administration are suggested when possible to overcome off-target events with systematic administration of the drug.