Randomized trials show oveporexton improves functioning in narcolepsy type 1, suggesting beneficial effects for quality of life.
Introduction Narcolepsy type 1 (NT1), a central hypersomnolence disorder with deficiency of hypothalamic orexin signaling, affects functioning, quality of life, and work productivity. We evaluated the effect of oveporexton (TAK-861), an orexin receptor 2-selective agonist, on the Functional Impacts of Narcolepsy Instrument (FINI; comprised of 6 independent domains: Tiredness, Cognitive Functioning, Cataplexy, Social Activities, Everyday Activities, and Everyday Responsibilities) in two phase 3 trials in participants with NT1 (The First Light [FL]: NCT06470828 and The Radiant Light [RL]: NCT06505031). Methods Eligible participants were 16–70 years with a confirmed ICSD-3 NT1 diagnosis supported by polysomnography or orexin cerebrospinal fluid ≤110 pg/mL; participants had an Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≥11 and ≥4 partial/complete cataplexy episodes/week. Participants received twice daily oral oveporexton 1 mg (The First Light only) or 2 mg, or placebo, ≥3 hours apart for 12 weeks. The FINI (secondary endpoint) is scored from 0 (best functioning) to 100 (worst functioning). Results Overall, 273 participants were randomized (FL, n=168; RL, n=105) to oveporexton 1mg/1mg (n=61), oveporexton 2mg/2mg (n=136), or placebo (n=76). Mean ages were 31.4 years (The First Light) and 30.7 years (The Radiant Light); 58.3% (n=98) and 47.6% (n=50) were female, respectively. Significant improvements versus placebo were observed for all FINI domains: Least square (LS) mean changes from baseline to Week 12 versus placebo for oveporexton were clinically meaningful across all FINI domains for both trials across all doses, all p< 0.001. Conclusion In two phase 3 trials, oveporexton consistently showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in narcolepsy-specific functioning over placebo. Support (if any) Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Plazzi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: