De Crescenzo F, D'Alo GL, Ostinelli EG, et al. Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2022 Jul 16;400(10347):170-184. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00878-9.
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder.

METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (=18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ.

FINDINGS: We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]).

INTERPRETATION: Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice.

FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Ratings by Clinicians (at least 3 per Specialty)
Specialty Score
Neurology
Psychiatry
FM/GP/Mental Health
Internal Medicine
Comments from MORE raters

FM/GP/Mental Health rater

Insomnia is a very common problem that clinicians deal with. This thorough review underlines the limited value of pharmacologic agents, helps guide therapeutic choices, and reminds us that non-pharmacologic interventions remain first-line as they are the more effective interventions compared with medications.

Internal Medicine rater

This is an information-dense analysis that well summarized would be very valuable for most internists.

Internal Medicine rater

New information here and well summarized. Unfortunately, it confirms there are no safe and effective meds for insomnia. There is still problems with emphasizing important functional outcomes in the studies.

Psychiatry rater

The paper focuses on a very clinically relevant subject, but (no fault of the authors) the combination of all the available data does not lead to clear advice. That is, for which sort of patient with which sort of insomnia is the best agent to prescribe?

Psychiatry rater

This article is an exhaustive review of all RCTs looking at the efficacy of various medicines in treating insomnia in adults, published through November 2021. It also looks at all-cause dropouts from treatment and presence of adverse events. The authors clearly describe their selection criteria, their sources, and the number of studies reviewed and eliminated to get 170 RCTs for the systematic review and 154 double-blind RCTs for network meta-analysis. What was particularly interesting was that the analyses shows how little data are available for long-term use of most commonly used agents such as BZDs. The data show efficacy for only Eszopiclone and Lemborexant, but most agents were efficacious for acute treatment. when considering safety data and drop out rates, however, the overall promise of medicines for treatment of acute and chronic insomnia was weak. Clinically, this often pans out if one is to treat all insomnias the same, which studies like these do.