Comparative short‐term safety and efficacy of hypnotics: A quantitative risk–benefit analysis

Author:

Cheung Janet M. Y.1ORCID,Scott Hannah2ORCID,Muench Alexandria3ORCID,Grunstein Ronald R.456ORCID,Krystal Andrew D.7,Riemann Dieter89ORCID,Perlis Michael3

Affiliation:

1. School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney, Camperdown Campus Sydney New South Wales Australia

2. Adelaide Institute for Sleep Health, A Flinders Centre of Research Excellence, College of Medicine and Public Health Flinders University Adelaide South Australia Australia

3. Department of Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

4. CIRUS, Centre for Sleep and Chronobiology Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, Macquarie University Sydney New South Wales Australia

5. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney Local Health District Sydney New South Wales Australia

6. Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

7. Department of Psychiatry University of California, San Francisco California San Francisco USA

8. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Freiburg Germany

9. Center for Basics in NeuroModulation (NeuroModulBasics) Faculty of Medicine University of Freiburg Freiburg Germany

Abstract

SummarySeveral professional societies have provided recommendations for prescribing medications for insomnia. None has provided an integrative analysis that concurrently quantifies safety and efficacy (e.g., risk–benefit ratios). This represents an important gap for informing clinician decision‐making. Accordingly, the aim of the present review is to provide such an analysis for five classes of sleep‐promoting medications. Adverse event data values were extracted from the most recent FDA‐approved package inserts and converted to an integer before being placebo‐adjusted and standardized as a rate per 1000 (AEr). Efficacy data, pre‐to‐post self‐reported data for active and placebo conditions were acquired from pivotal trials identified in “white papers” and systematic reviews/meta‐analyses. Weighted effect sizes were calculated for subjective sleep latency, wake time after sleep onset and total sleep time, and then were averaged by medication class for each sleep continuity variable. Overall efficacy was represented by a single variable, SWT (sleep latency + wake time after sleep onset + total sleep time). Risk–benefit was represented using a simple ratio value. For safety, it was found that melatonin receptor agonists had the lowest adverse event rate (AEr = 43.1), and non‐benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists had the highest rate (AEr = 255.0). For efficacy, it was found that the pre‐to‐post placebo adjusted effect sizes were largest for benzodiazepines (effect size = 1.94) and smallest for melatonin receptor agonists (effect size = 0.109). For risk–benefit, histamine antagonist had the most favourable profile (risk–benefit = 69.5), while melatonin receptor agonist had the least favourable profile (risk–benefit = 395.7). Overall, the combined metric for risk–benefit suggests that treatment with a histamine antagonist is optimal and potentially represents the best first‐line therapy for the medical management of insomnia.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Behavioral Neuroscience,Cognitive Neuroscience,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3