The effects of different dosages of dual orexin receptor antagonists and zolpidem on sleep and cognitive function: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Mengzhen Zhou , Rujia Liu , Zhengqi Xie
{"title":"The effects of different dosages of dual orexin receptor antagonists and zolpidem on sleep and cognitive function: A meta-analysis and systematic review","authors":"Mengzhen Zhou ,&nbsp;Rujia Liu ,&nbsp;Zhengqi Xie","doi":"10.1016/j.sleepe.2023.100068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of different dosages of dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) and zolpidem on insomnia and cognitive function.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The standard mean difference (SMD) was generated for consecutive variants. A dose‒response meta-regression model was constructed in RStudio 4.2.1 to compare the efficacy and safety of low, medium and high doses of DORAs and zolpidem on cognitive function and insomnia.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 22 studies with 8,223 subjects were included. Compared with the placebo, low and medium doses of DORAs significantly decreased motor vehicle accidents/violations (SMD= -0.02, 95 % CI: -0.21 to 0.17 and SMD= -0.36, 95 % CI: -0.52 to -0.20, respectively), whereas medium and high doses of zolpidem significantly increased this index (SMD=0.77, 95 % CI: 0.39 to 1.16 and SMD=1.17, 95 % CI: 0.62 to 1.72, respectively). In addition, the total sleep time (TST) of low, medium, and high doses of DORAs was SMD=0.28, 95 % CI: - 0.15 to 0.70; SMD=1.36, 95 % CI: 0.87 to 1.86; and SMD=2.59, 95 % CI: 1.89 to 3.30, respectively. The TST of zolpidem at low, medium, and high doses was SMD=1.01, 95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.83; SMD=1.94, 95 % CI: 0.46 to 3.43; and SMD=1.71, 95 % CI: 0.86 to 2.56, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We recommend DORAs as the best intervention for insomnia. DORAs were highly effective in inducing and maintaining sleep without impairing cognition. More head-to-head studies are needed to extend and consolidate our findings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74809,"journal":{"name":"Sleep epidemiology","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100068"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sleep epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667343623000136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of different dosages of dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) and zolpidem on insomnia and cognitive function.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The standard mean difference (SMD) was generated for consecutive variants. A dose‒response meta-regression model was constructed in RStudio 4.2.1 to compare the efficacy and safety of low, medium and high doses of DORAs and zolpidem on cognitive function and insomnia.

Results

A total of 22 studies with 8,223 subjects were included. Compared with the placebo, low and medium doses of DORAs significantly decreased motor vehicle accidents/violations (SMD= -0.02, 95 % CI: -0.21 to 0.17 and SMD= -0.36, 95 % CI: -0.52 to -0.20, respectively), whereas medium and high doses of zolpidem significantly increased this index (SMD=0.77, 95 % CI: 0.39 to 1.16 and SMD=1.17, 95 % CI: 0.62 to 1.72, respectively). In addition, the total sleep time (TST) of low, medium, and high doses of DORAs was SMD=0.28, 95 % CI: - 0.15 to 0.70; SMD=1.36, 95 % CI: 0.87 to 1.86; and SMD=2.59, 95 % CI: 1.89 to 3.30, respectively. The TST of zolpidem at low, medium, and high doses was SMD=1.01, 95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.83; SMD=1.94, 95 % CI: 0.46 to 3.43; and SMD=1.71, 95 % CI: 0.86 to 2.56, respectively.

Conclusion

We recommend DORAs as the best intervention for insomnia. DORAs were highly effective in inducing and maintaining sleep without impairing cognition. More head-to-head studies are needed to extend and consolidate our findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同剂量双食欲素受体拮抗剂和唑吡坦对睡眠和认知功能的影响:荟萃分析和系统综述
目的比较不同剂量的双食欲素受体拮抗剂(DORA)和唑吡坦对失眠和认知功能的疗效和安全性。方法检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Scopus和Google Scholar等数据库中的相关文章。标准平均差(SMD)是为连续的变体生成的。在RStudio 4.2.1中构建了一个剂量-反应元回归模型,以比较低、中、高剂量DORA和唑吡坦对认知功能和失眠的疗效和安全性。结果共纳入22项研究,8223名受试者。与安慰剂相比,低剂量和中剂量DORA显著降低了机动车事故/违章(SMD=-0.02,95%CI:0.21-0.17和SMD=-0.36,95%CI:0.52-0.20),而中剂量和高剂量唑吡坦显著提高了这一指数(SMD=0.77,95%CI:0.39-1.16和SMD=1.17,95%CI:0.62-1.72)。此外,低、中、高剂量DORA的总睡眠时间(TST)为SMD=0.28,95%CI:-0.15-0.70;SMD=1.36,95%CI:0.87至1.86;SMD=2.59,95%CI:1.89~3.30。唑吡坦在低、中、高剂量下的TST为SMD=1.01,95%CI:0.18至1.83;SMD=1.94,95%CI:0.46至3.43;SMD=1.71,95%CI:0.86~2.56。结论DORA是治疗失眠的最佳干预措施。DORA在不损害认知的情况下,在诱导和维持睡眠方面非常有效。需要更多的面对面研究来扩展和巩固我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sleep epidemiology
Sleep epidemiology Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine, Clinical Neurology, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sleep disparities in the United States: Comparison of logistic and linear regression with stratification by race Heart rate variability, sleep quality and physical activity in medical students Prevalence of sleep disturbances and factors associated among school going children in Uganda, a cross-sectional study Longitudinal study of chronic nausea and vomiting and its associations with sleep-related leg cramps in the US general population Erratum to “Modeling and Feature Assessment of the Sleep Quality among Chronic Kidney Disease Patients” [Sleep Epidemiology Volume 2, December 2022, 100041]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1