RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic process for idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is complex due to the diverse aetiologies of daytime somnolence, ambiguous pathophysiological understanding, and symptom variability. Current diagnostic instruments, such as the multiple sleep latency test (MSLT), are limited in their ability to fully represent IH's diverse nature. This study endeavours to delineate subgroups among IH patients via cluster analysis of polysomnographic data and to examine the temporal evolution of their symptomatology, aiming to enhance the granularity of understanding and individualized treatment approaches for IH. METHODS: This study included individuals referred to the Uppsala Centre for Sleep Disorders from 2010 to 2019, who were diagnosed with IH based on the International Classification of Sleep Disorders-3 (ICSD-3) criteria, following a thorough diagnostic evaluation. The final cohort, after excluding participants with incomplete data or significant comorbid sleep-related respiratory conditions, comprised 69 subjects, including 49 females and 20 males, with an average age of 40 years. Data were collected through polysomnography (PSG), MSLT, and standardized questionnaires. A two-step cluster analysis was employed to navigate the heterogeneity within IH, focusing on objective time allocation across different sleep stages and sleep efficiency derived from PSG. The study also aimed to track subgroup-specific changes in symptomatology over time, with follow-ups ranging from 21 to 179 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: The two-step cluster analysis yielded two distinct groups with a satisfactory silhouette coefficient: Cluster 1 (n = 29; 42 %) and Cluster 2 (n = 40; 58 %). Cluster 1 exhibited increased deep sleep duration, reduced stage 2 sleep, and higher sleep maintenance efficiency compared to Cluster 2. Further analyses of non-clustering variables indicated shorter wake after sleep onset in Cluster 1, but no significant differences in other sleep parameters, MSLT outcomes, body mass index, age, or self-reported measures of sleep inertia or medication usage. Long-term follow-up assessments showed an overall improvement in excessive daytime sleepiness, with no significant inter-cluster differences. CONCLUSION: This exploratory two-step cluster analysis of IH-diagnosed patients discerned two subgroups with distinct nocturnal sleep characteristics, aligning with prior findings and endorsing the notion that IH may encompass several phenotypes, each potentially requiring tailored therapeutic strategies. Further research is imperative to substantiate these findings.

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT) is a key diagnostic component in the diagnosis of central disorders of hypersomnolence. Due to time constraints, it is common practice to wake patients at a standard time from overnight polysomnography (PSG) prior to the MSLT. This has the potential to influence MSLT results due to sleep deprivation. We describe the impact of allowing ad libitum sleep on the night prior to the MSLT in patients being assessed for hypersomnolence. METHODS: 580 consecutive patients undergoing PSG/MSLT for assessment of hypersomnolence were analyzed: 290 either side of a change in laboratory protocol which allowed patients ad libitum sleep during the PSG, rather than being woken at a pre-specified time. Baseline characteristics, PSG and MSLT results were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Groups were similar at baseline, other than there being more females in the ad libitum group. After adjusting for confounding variables, ad libitum patients had later sleep offset time (+58.7 minutes; p<0.001), longer PSG total sleep time (+47.8 minutes; p<0.001), longer MSLT mean sleep latency (+1.3 minutes; p=0.002) and 23% fewer MSLT with mean sleep latency less than 8 minutes (p=0.004) when compared with patients who were woken at a standard time. CONCLUSIONS: The common practice of waking patients from their PSG at a standard time has the potential to curtail sleep and impact MSLT results by reducing mean sleep latency. Patients being assessed for hypersomnolence should be allowed ad libitum sleep during the PSG on the night prior to their MSLT.

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The role of actigraphy in central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH) is expanding but evidence of reliability with polysomnography (PSG) is scarce and provided only during nighttime. We explored the agreement between actigraphy and continuous 24-hour PSG at CDH diagnosis. METHODS: Forty-four consecutive drug-naïve patients (28 narcolepsy, 16 idiopathic hypersomnia) underwent actigraphy during 24 hours of free-running PSG, during multiple sleep latency test (MSLT) and 13 of them also during maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT). Daytime and nighttime sleep features and MSLT and MWT mean sleep latencies (mSL) were estimated with the actigraphic algorithms by Cole-Kripke (CK) Sadeh, and University of California San Diego (UCSD). Agreement to corresponding PSG measures was assessed with Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: Nighttime-total sleep time (TST) in narcolepsy was significantly underestimated with CK (bias 27.8 min, 95%CI 13.7-41.9) and Sadeh (bias 56.7 min, 95%CI 38.8/74.5). Daytime-TST was overestimated in IH and narcolepsy with all algorithms (CK: bias -42.2, 95%CI -67/-17.4; Sadeh: bias -30.2 min, 95%CI -52.7/-7.7; UCSD bias -86.9 min, 95%CI -118.2/-55.6). 24-hour-TST was overestimated by CK and UCSD in IH (CK: bias -58.5 min, 95%CI -105.5/-11.5; UCSD: bias -118.8 min, 95% CI -172.5/-65), and by UCSD in narcolepsy (bias -68.8 min, 95%CI -109.3/-38.2). In the entire cohort, actigraphy overestimated MSLT mSL but not MWT mSL. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional actigraphic algorithms overestimate 24-hour TST in IH and underestimate nighttime TST in narcolepsy. These discrepancies call for cautious application of actigraphy in the diagnostic process of CDH and the development of new quantitative signal analysis approaches.

RESUMEN

Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is a rare neurological sleep disorder, characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness despite normal sleep duration, that can significantly impact patient's lives. The burden of IH goes beyond excessive daytime sleepiness, pervading all aspects of everyday life. Characteristic and burdensome symptoms of IH include sleep inertia/drunkenness, long sleep duration, and daytime cognitive dysfunction. This systematic review assessed current knowledge regarding IH diagnostic challenges and burden of illness. Literature searches for original epidemiological, clinical, humanistic, or economic research relevant to IH published between 2012 and 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, gray literature (diagnostic criteria and treatment guidelines), conferences (2019-2022), and clinical trial databases yielded 97 articles. Findings indicate that IH remains a poorly defined diagnosis of exclusion that is difficult to distinguish from narcolepsy type 2 because of symptom overlap and inadequacies of objective testing. Consequently, individuals with IH endure diagnostic delays of up to 9 years. The economic burden of IH has not been characterized to any appreciable extent. Pharmacological treatment options can improve symptoms and functional status, but rarely restores normal levels of functioning. These findings highlight the need to reclassify central disorders of hypersomnolence. Further collaboration is now required between research groups to identify and validate objective markers to help redefine diagnostic criteria for IH. This would move IH into a position that could benefit from future targeted therapeutic interventions. The study was funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Optimal measurement tools for problematic sleep inertia, common in some central disorders of hypersomnolence (CDH), have not yet been determined. We evaluated the performance of the Sleep Inertia Questionnaire (SIQ) in CDH, and how well it distinguished hypersomnolent groups from controls, and IH (idiopathic hypersomnia) from narcolepsy type 1 (NT1). METHODS: This prospective, bi-centric study included 63 control, 84 IH, 16 NT1, 18 narcolepsy type 2 (NT2), and 88 subjective excessive daytime sleepiness (sEDS) participants, using ICSD-3 criteria. 126 (47.2 %) participants were on any medication at the time of SIQ completion. We assessed construct validity of SIQ scores, and sleep inertia duration (SID), and compared them across diagnoses, controlling for age and center. We derived cutpoints to distinguish hypersomnolent patients from controls and IH from NT1. Sensitivity analyses for depression, chronotype, and medication were performed. RESULTS: The SIQ sum and composite score were significantly lower in controls than in other groups (p < 0.0001), demonstrating outstanding ability to distinguish patients from controls (AUCs 0.92), without differences among hypersomnolent groups. SID (AUC 0.76) was significantly shorter in controls than in all hypersomnolent groups except NT1, and was shorter in NT1 than in IH or sEDS. Optimal SIQ sum cutpoint was 42 (J = 0.71) for patients versus controls. Optimal SID cutpoint in distinguishing IH from NT1 was 25 min (J = 0.39). CONCLUSION: The SIQ has excellent ability to distinguish hypersomnolent patients from healthy controls, after controlling for depression, eveningness, and medication. SID is best at distinguishing IH from NT1.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

People with narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), narcolepsy type 2 (NT2), and idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) often report cognitive impairment which can be quite burdensome but is rarely evaluated in routine clinical practice. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the nature and magnitude of cognitive impairment in NT1, NT2, and IH in studies conducted from January 2000 to October 2022. We classified cognitive tests assessing memory, executive function, and attention by cognitive domain. Between-group differences were analyzed as standardized mean differences (Cohen's d), and Cohen's d for individual tests were integrated according to cognitive domain and clinical disease group. Eighty-seven studies were screened for inclusion; 39 satisfied inclusion criteria, yielding 73 comparisons (k): NT1, k = 60; NT2, k = 8; IH, k = 5. Attention showed large impairment in people with NT1 (d = -0.90) and IH (d = -0.97), and moderate impairment in NT2 (d = -0.60). Executive function was moderately impaired in NT1 (d = -0.30) and NT2 (d = -0.38), and memory showed small impairments in NT1 (d = -0.33). A secondary meta-analysis identified sustained attention as the most impaired domain in NT1, NT2, and IH (d ≈ -0.5 to -1). These meta-analyses confirm that cognitive impairments are present in NT1, NT2, and IH, and provide quantitative confirmation of reports of cognitive difficulties made by patients and clinicians. These findings provide a basis for the future design of studies to determine whether cognitive impairments can improve with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for narcolepsy and IH.

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is characterized by excessive sleepiness during the day, prolonged sleep at night, and difficulty waking up. The true prevalence of IH is uncertain. ICSD provides criteria for diagnosing IH; however, the definition has evolved. Managing IH involves using pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches, although the most effective strategies are still unclear. The objective of this scoping review was to identify the extent, range, and nature of the available evidence, identify research gaps, and discuss the implications for clinical practice and policy. METHODS: To conduct this review, a comprehensive search was conducted across scientific databases, without any restrictions on the date or study type. Eligible studies examined the effectiveness of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for IH and reported the outcomes of these interventions. Data from the studies were screened, analyzed, and synthesized to provide an overview of the available literature landscape. RESULTS: 51 studies were included in this review, which used various methods and interventions. Pharmacological treatments, particularly modafinil, have been frequently studied and have yielded positive results. There is also emerging evidence for alternative medications such as low-sodium oxybate and pitolisant. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as CBT-H and tDCS have also shown promise in managing IH. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the complexity of managing IH management and emphasizes the need for personalized multidisciplinary approaches. Pharmacological interventions are important in managing IH and can be complemented by non-medication strategies. Larger-scale studies are necessary to advance our understanding of IH and to improve treatment outcomes.

RESUMEN

Hypersomnia spectrum disorders are underdiagnosed and poorly treated due to their heterogeneity and absence of biomarkers. The electroretinography has been proposed as a proxy of central dysfunction and has proved to be valuable to differentiate certain psychiatric disorders. Hypersomnolence is a shared core feature in central hypersomnia and psychiatric disorders. We therefore aimed to identify biomarkers by studying the electroretinography profile in patients with narcolepsy type 1, idiopathic hypersomnia and in controls. Cone, rod and retinal ganglion cells electrical activity were recorded with flash-electroretinography in non-dilated eye of 31 patients with idiopathic hypersomnia (women 84%, 26.6 ± 5.9 years), 19 patients with narcolepsy type 1 (women 63%, 36.6 ± 12.7 years) and 43 controls (women 58%, 30.6 ± 9.3 years). Reduced cone a-wave amplitude (p = 0.039) and prolonged cone (p = 0.022) and rod b-wave (p = 0.009) latencies were observed in patients with narcolepsy type 1 as compared with controls, while prolonged photopic negative response-wave latency (retinal ganglion cells activity) was observed in patients with idiopathic hypersomnia as compared with controls (p = 0.033). The rod and cone b-wave latency clearly distinguished narcolepsy type 1 from idiopathic hypersomnia and controls (area under the curve > 0.70), and the photopic negative response-wave latency distinguished idiopathic hypersomnia and narcolepsy type 1 from controls with an area under the curve > 0.68. This first original study shows electroretinography anomalies observed in patients with hypersomnia. Narcolepsy type 1 is associated with impaired cone and rod responses, whereas idiopathic hypersomnia is associated with impaired retinal ganglion cells response, suggesting different phototransduction alterations in both hypersomnias. Although these results need to be confirmed with a larger sample size, the electroretinography may be a promising tool for clinicians to differentiate hypersomnia subtypes.

RESUMEN

Patients with idiopathic hypersomnia frequently report having unrefreshing naps. However, whether they have abnormal sleep architecture during naps that may explain their unrefreshing aspect is unknown. We compared sleep architecture during short daytime naps in patients with idiopathic hypersomnia reporting unrefreshing and refreshing naps. One-hundred and thirty-four patients tested with one-night polysomnography, followed by an adapted version of the Multiple Sleep Latency Test with four naps, were included. They were asked about the refreshing aspect of their habitual naps during a clinical interview. They were classified as having objective (Multiple Sleep Latency Test ≤ 8 min) or subjective idiopathic hypersomnia (Multiple Sleep Latency Test > 8 min), and as presenting refreshing or unrefreshing naps. We tested Group differences (refreshing versus unrefreshing naps) on nap sleep architecture in the whole sample and for subjective and objective idiopathic hypersomnia subgroups separately using ANCOVAs. No Group effects were observed in the Multiple Sleep Latency Test architecture in the whole sample and in objective and subjective idiopathic hypersomnia subgroups. This study provides preliminary evidence that reporting unrefreshing naps is not associated with clinically significant findings in Multiple Sleep Latency Test sleep architecture in patients with idiopathic hypersomnia. Given that naps taken by patients with idiopathic hypersomnia are typically long, future studies should investigate longer daytime sleep episodes.

RESUMEN

Idiopathic hypersomnia typically is a chronic and potentially debilitating neurologic sleep disorder, and is characterized by excessive daytime sleepiness. In addition to excessive daytime sleepiness, idiopathic hypersomnia symptoms can include severe sleep inertia; long, unrefreshing naps; long sleep time; and cognitive dysfunction. Patients with idiopathic hypersomnia may experience a significant impact on their quality of life, work or school performance, earnings, employment, and overall health. Given the complex range of symptoms associated with idiopathic hypersomnia and the array of treatments available, there is a need to provide guidance on the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia and the clinically relevant recommendations that enhance effective disease management. Identifying appropriate treatment options for idiopathic hypersomnia requires timely and accurate diagnosis, consideration of individual patient factors, and frequent reassessment of symptom severity. In 2021, low-sodium oxybate was the first treatment to receive approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. However, many off-label treatments continue to be used. Adjunct nonpharmacologic therapies, including good sleep hygiene, patient education and counseling, and use of support groups, should be recognized and recommended when appropriate. This narrative review describes optimal treatment strategies that take into account patient-specific factors, as well as the unique characteristics of each medication and the evolution of a patient's response to treatment. Perspectives on appropriate symptom measurement and management, and potential future therapies, are also offered.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Low-sodium oxybate (LXB) is approved for treatment of narcolepsy in patients aged 7 years and older and treatment of idiopathic hypersomnia in adults. LXB contains the same active moiety with 92% less sodium than sodium oxybate (SXB). As the indication for oxybate treatment in patients with idiopathic hypersomnia is new and allows for individualized dosing optimization, guidance for beginning LXB treatment is needed. In particular, clinicians may benefit from guidance regarding treatment initiation, dosing/regimen options, potential challenges, and treatment expectations. Additionally, pharmacokinetic profiles differ slightly between both treatments, and further guidance on transitioning from SXB to LXB in patients with narcolepsy may aid clinicians. METHODS: An expert panel of five sleep specialists was convened to obtain consensus on recommendations for these topics using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS: Across two virtual meetings, the panel agreed on 31 recommendations with a high degree of consensus that fell into four overarching topics: (1) introducing LXB to patients; (2) initiating LXB for adult narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia; (3) addressing challenges in using LXB; and (4) transitioning from SXB to LXB. The panel recommended that clinicians provide a clear overview of how LXB works for treating symptoms in narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia, as appropriate for their patients, explain safety aspects, and set expectations prior to initiating LXB treatment. Strategies for initial dosing and regimen are provided. Strategies for adjusting the dose, regimen, timing, and consideration of individual factors were developed for specific instances in which patients may have trouble staying asleep or waking up, as well as guidance for addressing potential adverse events, such as nausea, dizziness, anxiety, and depression. Discussion points based on existing literature and clinical experience were included as relevant for each statement. CONCLUSION: Clinicians may use this resource to guide LXB dosing optimization with patients.

RESUMEN

The differential diagnosis of narcolepsy type 1, a rare, chronic, central disorder of hypersomnolence, is challenging due to overlapping symptoms with other hypersomnolence disorders. While recent years have seen significant growth in our understanding of nocturnal polysomnography narcolepsy type 1 features, there remains a need for improving methods to differentiate narcolepsy type 1 nighttime sleep features from those of individuals without narcolepsy type 1. We aimed to develop a machine learning framework for identifying sleep features to discriminate narcolepsy type 1 from clinical controls, narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia. The population included polysomnography data from 350 drug-free individuals (114 narcolepsy type 1, 90 narcolepsy type 2, 105 idiopathic hypersomnia, and 41 clinical controls) collected at the National Reference Centers for Narcolepsy in Montpelier, France. Several sets of nocturnal sleep features were explored, as well as the value of time-resolving sleep architecture by analysing sleep per quarter-night. Several patterns of nighttime sleep evolution emerged that differed between narcolepsy type 1, clinical controls, narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia, with increased nighttime instability observed in patients with narcolepsy type 1. Using machine learning models, we identified rapid eye movement sleep onset as the best single polysomnography feature to distinguish narcolepsy type 1 from controls, narcolepsy type 2 and idiopathic hypersomnia. By combining multiple feature sets capturing different aspects of sleep across quarter-night periods, we were able to further improve between-group discrimination and could identify the most discriminative sleep features. Our results highlight salient polysomnography features and the relevance of assessing their time-dependent changes during sleep that could aid diagnosis and measure the impact of novel therapeutics in future clinical trials.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Fatigue is the most commonly reported post-COVID symptom. A minority of patients also report excessive daytime sleepiness, which could be a target for treatment. Methods: Among 530 patients with a post-COVID condition, those with excessive daytime sleepiness were systematically assessed for objective central hypersomnia, with exclusion of all cases not clearly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: Four cases of post-COVID central hypersomnia were identified, three fulfilling the criteria of the 3rd International Classification of Sleep Disorders for idiopathic hypersomnia, and one for type II narcolepsy. We report here their clinical history, sleep examination data and treatment, with a favorable response to methylphenidate in three cases and spontaneous resolution in one case. Conclusion: We highlight the importance of identifying cases of post-COVID central hypersomnia, as it may be a treatable trait of a post-COVID condition.

RESUMEN

We describe a 32-year-old Japanese female with hypersomnia and bipolar disorder. She had developed hypersomnia and sleep attacks in her teens. She was misdiagnosed with narcolepsy at a neurology department and then received methylphenidate (MPH) for many years. After giving birth, she developed postpartum depression and suffered from mood swings and irritability. Following 10-year treatment with methylphenidate, she experienced MPH-induced psychosis when she was in a manic state. Her psychosis improved rapidly with the cessation of methylphenidate. Furthermore, brexpiprazole treatment ameliorated her manic symptoms and hypersomnolence. Post-discharge, she was diagnosed with idiopathic hypersomnia based on nocturnal polysomnography and a multiple sleep latency test. This case indicates that brexpiprazole as a serotonin dopamine activity modulator might provide therapeutic effects against not only the patient's manic symptoms but also idiopathic hypersomnia.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

Brain fog is an undefined term describing a cluster of symptoms related to fatigue and impaired memory, attention, and concentration. Brain fog or brain fog-like symptoms have been reported in central disorders of hypersomnolence and in a range of seemingly unrelated disorders, including coronavirus disease 2019, major depressive disorder, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and celiac disease. This narrative review summarizes current evidence and proposes a consensus definition for brain fog. Brain fog is prevalent in narcolepsy and idiopathic hypersomnia, with more than three-quarters of patients with either disorder reporting this symptom in a registry study; it has also been reported as particularly difficult to treat in idiopathic hypersomnia. Studies directly evaluating brain fog are rare; tools for evaluating this symptom cluster typically are patient reports, with few objective measures validated in any disorder. Evaluating brain fog is further complicated by confounding symptoms, such as excessive daytime sleepiness, which is a hallmark of hypersomnolence disorders. No treatments specifically address brain fog. The paucity of literature, assessment tools, and medications for brain fog highlights the need for research leading to better disambiguation and treatment. Until a clear consensus definition is established, we propose brain fog in hypersomnia disorders be defined as a cognitive dysfunction that may or may not be linked with excessive sleepiness, related to an underlying neuronal dysfunction, which reduces concentration and impairs information processing, leading to a complaint of lack of clarity of mental thinking and awareness. CITATION: Rosenberg R, Thorpy MJ, Doghramji K, Morse AM. Brain fog in central disorders of hypersomnolence: a review. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(4):643-651.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Little attention has been paid to the long-term development of idiopathic hypersomnia symptoms and idiopathic hypersomnia comorbidities. The aim of this study was to describe the general health of patients with idiopathic hypersomnia years after the initial diagnosis, focusing on current subjective hypersomnolence and the presence of its other possible causes. Adult patients diagnosed with idiopathic hypersomnia ≥ 3 years ago at sleep centres in Prague and Kosice were invited to participate in this study. A total of 60 patients were examined (age 47.3 ± SD = 13.2 years, 66.7% women). In all participants, their hypersomnolence could not be explained by any other cause but idiopathic hypersomnia at the time of diagnosis. The mean duration of follow-up was 9.8 + 8.0 years. Fifty patients (83%) reported persisting hypersomnolence, but only 33 (55%) had no other disease that could also explain the patient's excessive daytime sleepiness and/or prolonged sleep. In two patients (3%), the diagnosis in the meantime had changed to narcolepsy type 2, and 15 patients (25%) had developed a disease or diseases potentially causing hypersomnolence since the initial diagnosis. Complete hypersomnolence resolution without stimulant treatment lasting longer than 6 months was reported by 10 patients (17%). To conclude, in a longer interval from the diagnosis of idiopathic hypersomnia, hypersomnolence may disappear or may theoretically be explained by another newly developed disease, or the diagnosis may be changed to narcolepsy type 2. Thus, after 9.8 years, only 55% of the examined patients with idiopathic hypersomnia had a typical clinical picture of idiopathic hypersomnia without doubts about the cause of the current hypersomnolence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in elucidating the influence of the gut microbiota on sleep physiology. The gut microbiota affects the central nervous system by modulating neuronal pathways through the neuroendocrine and immune system, the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis, and various metabolic pathways. The gut microbiota can also influence circadian rhythms. In this study, we observed the gut microbiota composition of patients suffering from narcolepsy type 1, narcolepsy type 2, and idiopathic hypersomnia. We did not observe any changes in the alpha diversity of the gut microbiota among patient groups and healthy controls. We observed changes in beta diversity in accordance with Jaccard dissimilarities between the control group and groups of patients suffering from narcolepsy type 1 and idiopathic hypersomnia. Our results indicate that both these patient groups differ from controls relative to the presence of rare bacterial taxa. However, after adjustment for various confounding factors such as BMI, age, and gender, there were no statistical differences among the groups. This indicates that the divergence in beta diversity in the narcolepsy type 1 and idiopathic hypersomnia groups did not arise due to sleep disturbances. This study implies that using metabolomics and proteomics approaches to study the role of microbiota in sleep disorders might prove beneficial.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Hypersomnia poses major challenges to treatment providers given the limitations of available treatment options. In this context, the application of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) may open up new avenues to effective treatment. Preliminary evidence suggests both acute and longer-lasting positive effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on vigilance and sleepiness in hypersomniac patients. Based on these findings, the present study sought to investigate short-term effects of single sessions of tDCS and transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) on sleepiness in persons suffering from hypersomnia. Methods: A sample of 29 patients suffering from narcolepsy or idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) was recruited from the Regensburg Sleep Disorder Center and underwent single sessions of tES (anodal tDCS, tRNS, sham) over the left and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on three consecutive days in a double-blind, sham-controlled, pseudorandomized crossover trial. The primary study endpoint was the mean reaction time measured by the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) before and directly after the daily tES sessions. Secondary endpoints were additional PVT outcome metrics as well as subjective outcome parameters (e.g., Karolinska Sleepiness Scale; KSS). Results: There were no significant treatment effects neither on objective (i.e., PVT) nor on subjective indicators of sleepiness. Conclusion: We could not demonstrate any clinically relevant effects of single sessions of tDCS or tRNS on objective or subjective measures of sleepiness in patients with hypersomnia. However, we cannot exclude that repeated sessions of tES may affect vigilance or sleepiness in hypersomniac patients.