368 Durability of Tx Response to Zolpidem using a Partial Reinforcement Regimen: Does this strategy require contingent reinforcement?. (3rd May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Perlis, Michael; Morales, Knashawn; Vargas, Ivan; Muench, Alexandria; Seewald, Mark; D'Antonio, Breanna; Grandner, Michael
• Is Part Of: Sleep. Volume 44(2021)Supplement 2
• Page Start: A146
• Page End: A147
• Publication Date: 2021-05-03
• Subjects: Sleep -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Sleep disorders -- Periodicals; Sommeil -- Aspect physiologique -- Périodiques; Sommeil, Troubles du -- Périodiques; Sleep disorders; Sleep -- Physiological aspects; Sleep -- physiological aspects; Sleep Wake Disorders; Psychophysiology; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.8498
• DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsab072.367
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0161-8105

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: In 2015, partial reinforcement (PR) was assessed as an alternative approach to maintenance therapy with zolpidem. The method being: once a treatment response is obtained over the course of 1-month's Tx with QHS dosing (Phase-1), Tx response can maintained over time with a PR regimen (Phase-2 [nightly pill/capsule use with 50% of capsules having medication and 50% having only inert filler]). In that study, it was assumed that Phase1 QHS dosing was required 1) to maximize treatment responding and 2) for the conditioning of pharmacologic responses to the medication vehicle (capsule). In the present study, these assumptions were tested by including both QHS and PR arms into Phase-1. Methods: In Phase-1 (1 month), subjects were randomized to the QHS or PRS conditions (2QHS:1PRS). In Phase-2 (3 months), the PRS group continued forward without a change in the treatment regimen (variable dose [VD-VD]) and the QHS group was re-randomized to either continued QHS Tx (full dose [FD-FD]) or to PRS Tx [FD-VD]). Both study phases were evaluated for treatment responses rates and for average change in TWT (SL+WASO+EMA). Results: 55 subjects (age 61.2+/-8.1, 64% female, & 73% white) were enrolled into Phase-1; 39 were randomized to the QHS condition and 16 to the PRS condition. In Phase-1, 77% (QHS) and 50% (PRS) exhibited treatment responses (p=0.09) where the average change in TWT was similar by group (QHS was -43min [CI -76, -9] and PRS was -76min [CI -138, -14];p=0.35). In Phase-2, 73% (FD-FD), 57% (FD-VD), and 88% (VD-VD) exhibited continued treatment responses (p=0.22) where the average improvement of TWT continued with FD-FD and remained stable for FD-VD and VD-VD (p<0.01). Conclusion: These data, while preliminary, suggest that QHS (vs. PRS) dosing produces more treatment responders and similar initial effects on sleep continuity during Phase-1, comparable maintenance of treatment response over time, and continued improvement on sleep continuity during Phase-2. These results suggest that partial reinforcement can maintain effects but cannot allow for the additional clinical gains afforded by continuous treatment. Given this, it may be the case that the partial reinforcement technique could be improved upon by extending phase from 1 to 2–4 months. Support (if any):