-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease - such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness - are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months. None of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these. In adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). In children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.
Topics: Apnea; Child; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Exercise; Female; Humans; Isotonic Contraction; Male; Middle Aged; Myofunctional Therapy; Oropharynx; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Therapeutic Irrigation; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 33141943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013449.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Cough; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; United States
PubMed: 35060618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004976.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia, and are associated with significant carer distress, increased healthcare costs, and institutionalisation. Although non-drug interventions are recommended as the first-line approach to managing these problems, drug treatment is often sought and used. However, there is significant uncertainty about the efficacy and adverse effects of the various hypnotic drugs in this clinically vulnerable population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects, including common adverse effects, of any drug treatment versus placebo for sleep disorders in people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 19 February 2020, using the terms: sleep, insomnia, circadian, hypersomnia, parasomnia, somnolence, rest-activity, and sundowning.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a drug with placebo, and that had the primary aim of improving sleep in people with dementia who had an identified sleep disturbance at baseline.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, risk of bias, and results. We used the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect, and where possible, synthesised results using a fixed-effect model. Key outcomes to be included in our summary tables were chosen with the help of a panel of carers. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We found nine eligible RCTs investigating: melatonin (5 studies, n = 222, five studies, but only two yielded data on our primary sleep outcomes suitable for meta-analysis), the sedative antidepressant trazodone (1 study, n = 30), the melatonin-receptor agonist ramelteon (1 study, n = 74, no peer-reviewed publication), and the orexin antagonists suvorexant and lemborexant (2 studies, n = 323). Participants in the trazodone study and most participants in the melatonin studies had moderate-to-severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD); those in the ramelteon study and the orexin antagonist studies had mild-to-moderate AD. Participants had a variety of common sleep problems at baseline. Primary sleep outcomes were measured using actigraphy or polysomnography. In one study, melatonin treatment was combined with light therapy. Only four studies systematically assessed adverse effects. Overall, we considered the studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that melatonin doses up to 10 mg may have little or no effect on any major sleep outcome over eight to 10 weeks in people with AD and sleep disturbances. We could synthesise data for two of our primary sleep outcomes: total nocturnal sleep time (TNST) (MD 10.68 minutes, 95% CI -16.22 to 37.59; 2 studies, n = 184), and the ratio of day-time to night-time sleep (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03; 2 studies; n = 184). From single studies, we found no evidence of an effect of melatonin on sleep efficiency, time awake after sleep onset, number of night-time awakenings, or mean duration of sleep bouts. There were no serious adverse effects of melatonin reported. We found low-certainty evidence that trazodone 50 mg for two weeks may improve TNST (MD 42.46 minutes, 95% CI 0.9 to 84.0; 1 study, n = 30), and sleep efficiency (MD 8.53%, 95% CI 1.9 to 15.1; 1 study, n = 30) in people with moderate-to-severe AD. The effect on time awake after sleep onset was uncertain due to very serious imprecision (MD -20.41 minutes, 95% CI -60.4 to 19.6; 1 study, n = 30). There may be little or no effect on number of night-time awakenings (MD -3.71, 95% CI -8.2 to 0.8; 1 study, n = 30) or time asleep in the day (MD 5.12 minutes, 95% CI -28.2 to 38.4). There were no serious adverse effects of trazodone reported. The small (n = 74), phase 2 trial investigating ramelteon 8 mg was reported only in summary form on the sponsor's website. We considered the certainty of the evidence to be low. There was no evidence of any important effect of ramelteon on any nocturnal sleep outcomes. There were no serious adverse effects. We found moderate-certainty evidence that an orexin antagonist taken for four weeks by people with mild-to-moderate AD probably increases TNST (MD 28.2 minutes, 95% CI 11.1 to 45.3; 1 study, n = 274) and decreases time awake after sleep onset (MD -15.7 minutes, 95% CI -28.1 to -3.3: 1 study, n = 274) but has little or no effect on number of awakenings (MD 0.0, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.5; 1 study, n = 274). It may be associated with a small increase in sleep efficiency (MD 4.26%, 95% CI 1.26 to 7.26; 2 studies, n = 312), has no clear effect on sleep latency (MD -12.1 minutes, 95% CI -25.9 to 1.7; 1 study, n = 274), and may have little or no effect on the mean duration of sleep bouts (MD -2.42 minutes, 95% CI -5.53 to 0.7; 1 study, n = 38). Adverse events were probably no more common among participants taking orexin antagonists than those taking placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.99; 2 studies, n = 323).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We discovered a distinct lack of evidence to guide decisions about drug treatment of sleep problems in dementia. In particular, we found no RCTs of many widely prescribed drugs, including the benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, although there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks for these common treatments. We found no evidence for beneficial effects of melatonin (up to 10 mg) or a melatonin receptor agonist. There was evidence of some beneficial effects on sleep outcomes from trazodone and orexin antagonists and no evidence of harmful effects in these small trials, although larger trials in a broader range of participants are needed to allow more definitive conclusions to be reached. Systematic assessment of adverse effects in future trials is essential.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Azepines; Caregiver Burden; Cognition; Humans; Indenes; Melatonin; Pyridines; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Sleep Wake Disorders; Time Factors; Trazodone; Triazoles
PubMed: 33189083
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009178.pub4 -
Annals of Internal Medicine May 2023Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown.
PURPOSE
To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention.
DATA EXTRACTION
Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], -3.85 [95% CI, -5.24 to -2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil-modafinil (MD, -2.25 [CI, -2.85 to -1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, -2.78 [CI, -4.03 to -1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil-modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events.
LIMITATIONS
There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies.
CONCLUSION
Solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil-modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
None.
Topics: Humans; Autoreceptors; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Modafinil; Network Meta-Analysis; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 37155992
DOI: 10.7326/M22-3473 -
Psychosomatics 2016Hypersomnia is a common complaint in medical offices. Often patients are given psychiatric diagnoses, but a primary sleep disorder may be present. The new diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypersomnia is a common complaint in medical offices. Often patients are given psychiatric diagnoses, but a primary sleep disorder may be present. The new diagnosis of "hypersomnolence disorder" (HD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition is a primary sleep disorder most similar to the diagnosis "idiopathic hypersomnia" (IH) in sleep literature and can be missed in psychiatric settings.
METHODS
A systematic review of the computerized databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Psychinfo using the search criteria "idiopathic AND (hypersomnolence OR hypersomnia)," as well as "hypersomnolence disorder was conducted." Articles were included if they were in English and included information regarding the epidemiology, diagnosis, pathophysiology, or treatment of IH or HD. Where relevant, weighted means and 95% CI were calculated based on the number of subjects in each study.
RESULTS
A total of 143 articles discussed IH, whereas no articles were found regarding HD. Most articles were review articles, prospective studies, or studies of pathophysiology. IH is found in approximately 0.02%-0.010% of the general population, has a mean age of onset of 21.8 years, and is associated with several somatic symptoms. Alterations in histaminergic or dopaminergic signaling may be involved in IH. Treatment with modafinil or other stimulants appears moderately effective. IH can be differentiated from psychiatric hypersomnolence by formal polysomnography.
CONCLUSIONS
IH and HD are relatively uncommon disorders and little is known about them. However, they are distinct from psychiatric disorders and respond well to treatment once properly identified.
Topics: Benzhydryl Compounds; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Idiopathic Hypersomnia; Modafinil
PubMed: 26895727
DOI: 10.1016/j.psym.2015.12.006 -
PloS One 2015We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating suvorexant for primary insomnia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating suvorexant for primary insomnia.
METHODS
Relevant studies were identified through searches of PubMed, databases of the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO citations through June 27, 2015. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of suvorexant trial efficacy and safety outcomes. The primary efficacy outcomes were either subjective total sleep time (sTST) or subjective time-to-sleep onset (sTSO) at 1 month. The secondary outcomes were other efficacy outcomes, discontinuation rate, and individual adverse events. The risk ratio, number-needed-to-treat/harm, and weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on a random effects model were calculated.
RESULTS
The computerized literature database search initially yielded 48 results, from which 37 articles were excluded following a review of titles and abstracts and another eight review articles after full-text review. Thus, we identified 4 trials that included a total of 3,076 patients. Suvorexant was superior to placebo with regard to the two primary efficacy outcomes (sTST: WMD = -20.16, 95% CI = -25.01 to -15.30, 1889 patients, 3 trials, sTSO: WMD = -7.62, 95% CI = -11.03 to -4.21, 1889 patients, 3 trials) and was not different from placebo in trial discontinuations. Suvorexant caused a higher incidence than placebo of at least one side effects, abnormal dreams, somnolence, excessive daytime sleepiness/sedation, fatigue, dry mouth, and rebound insomnia.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis of published trial results suggests that suvorexant is effective in treating primary insomnia and is well-tolerated.
Topics: Azepines; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Aids, Pharmaceutical; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Treatment Outcome; Triazoles
PubMed: 26317363
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136910 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Mar 2019Hypersomnia is a common problem amongst individuals with Bipolar Disorder (BD). The objective of this meta-analysis is to estimate the frequency of hypersomnia in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hypersomnia is a common problem amongst individuals with Bipolar Disorder (BD). The objective of this meta-analysis is to estimate the frequency of hypersomnia in individuals with BD, and identify associated factors METHODS: Our search focused on articles documenting the frequency of hypersomnia among individuals with BD indexed in PubMed database and in the Cochrane Library, following the recommendations from the Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. A meta-analysis of proportion was conducted; funnel plot and Egger's test were used for the assessment of publication bias. Subgroups analyses were performed in order to evaluate possible confounders and associated factors.
RESULTS
We identified 10 studies, which included 1824 patients with BD. The overall estimate of the proportion of BD cases that reported hypersomnia was 29.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 25.8 - 34.1%, I = 59.2%; p < .05]. The funnel plot and the Egger's test suggest a low risk of publication bias (p = .527). The polarity of mood state, Bipolar Disorder type, use of medication, age, diagnostic criteria and hypersomnia criteria were not significantly related to hypersomnia.
LIMITATIONS
There is a possibility that smaller cross-sectional studies were not included. The high heterogeneity between studies is frequent in meta-analysis of both interventional and observational studies. Hypersomnia was not the primary outcome in some of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of hypersomnia prevalence in patients with BD. Further studies focused on clinical correlates and implications for health outcomes in BD are warranted.
Topics: Bipolar Disorder; Cross-Sectional Studies; Databases, Factual; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Prevalence; Risk
PubMed: 30611064
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.030 -
European Journal of Medical Research Mar 2023There is a great association between the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and asthma. Nonetheless, whether OSA impacts lung function, symptoms, and control in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a great association between the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and asthma. Nonetheless, whether OSA impacts lung function, symptoms, and control in asthma and whether asthma increases the respiratory events in OSA are unknown. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the relationship between obstructive sleep apnea and asthma severity and vice versa.
METHODS
We carried out a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception to September 2022. Primary outcomes were lung function, parameters of polysomnography, the risk of OSA in more severe or difficult-to-control asthmatic patients, and the risk of asthma in patients with more severe OSA. Heterogeneity was examined with the Q test and I statistics. We also performed subgroup analysis, Meta-regression, and Egger's test for bias analysis.
RESULTS
34 studies with 27,912 subjects were totally included. The results showed that the comorbidity of OSA aggravated lung function in asthmatic patients with a consequent decreased forced expiratory volume in one second %predicted (%FEV1) and the effect was particularly evident in children. %FEV1 tended to decrease in adult asthma patients complicated with OSA, but did not reach statistical significance. Interestingly, the risk of asthma seemed to be slightly lower in patients with more severe OSA (OR = 0.87, 95%CI 0.763-0.998). Asthma had no significant effect on polysomnography, but increased daytime sleepiness assessed by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale in OSA patients (WMD = 0.60, 95%CI 0.16-1.04). More severe asthma or difficult-to-control asthma was independently associated with OSA (odds ratio (OR) = 4.36, 95%CI 2.49-7.64).
CONCLUSION
OSA was associated with more severe or difficult-to-control asthma with decreased %FEV in children. The effect of OSA on lung function in adult patients should be further confirmed. Asthma increased daytime sleepiness in OSA patients. More studies are warranted to investigate the effect of asthma on OSA severity and the impact of different OSA severity on the prevalence of asthma. It is strongly recommended that people with moderate-to-severe or difficult-to-control asthma screen for OSA and get the appropriate treatment.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Asthma; Comorbidity; Polysomnography; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence
PubMed: 36998095
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01097-4 -
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Apr 2022Primary care clinicians may be well placed to play a greater role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of sleep... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Primary care clinicians may be well placed to play a greater role in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. To evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of sleep apnea management in primary versus specialist care, using an individual-participant data meta-analysis to determine whether age, sex, severity of OSA, and daytime sleepiness impacted outcomes. Data sources were the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP, Scopus, ProQuest, U.S. National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, and ISRCTN registry (inception until 09-25-2019). Hand searching was undertaken. Two authors independently assessed articles and included trials that randomized adults with a suspected diagnosis of sleep apnea to primary versus specialist management within the same study and reported daytime sleepiness using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (range 0-24; >10 indicates pathological sleepiness; minimum clinically important difference 2 units) at baseline and follow-up. The primary analysis combined data from 970 (100%) participants (four trials). Risk of bias was assessed (Cochrane Tool). One-stage intention-to-treat analysis showed a slightly smaller decrease in daytime sleepiness (0.8; 0.2 to 1.4), but greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure in primary care (-1.9; -3.2 to -0.6 mm Hg), with similar findings in the per-protocol analysis. Primary care-based within-trial healthcare system costs per participant were lower (-$448.51 U.S.), and quality-adjusted life years and daytime sleepiness improvements were less expensive. Similar primary outcome results were obtained for subgroups in both management settings. Similar outcomes in primary care at a lower cost provide strong support for implementation of primary care-based management of sleep apnea.
Topics: Adult; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Humans; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Sleep Apnea Syndromes; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 34524936
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202105-590OC -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Apr 2015Over the past decade, researchers have shifted focus from the manic and depressive episodes to the interepisode period in the study of sleep-wake disturbance in bipolar... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Over the past decade, researchers have shifted focus from the manic and depressive episodes to the interepisode period in the study of sleep-wake disturbance in bipolar disorder. The objective of this systematic review was to compile and synthesize studies that employed sleep diary, actigraphy, polysomnography, and questionnaires to compare sleep-wake patterns in people with interepisode bipolar disorder or high-risk individuals vs. normal controls and/or people with primary insomnia. We searched key databases until June 2013. Our search identified 21 eligible studies, yielding 24 sleep-wake variables. A total of 531 people with interepisode bipolar disorder, 157 high-risk individuals, 678 normal controls and 67 adults with primary insomnia were evaluated. Using a random-effects model, our analyses suggest that adults with interepisode bipolar disorder appear worse than normal controls in most variables and comparable to adults with primary insomnia in certain aspects. Sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, and variability of sleep-wake variables were most consistently impaired in interepisode bipolar disorder. In comparison with controls, high-risk individuals were found to have higher variability in sleep efficiency and lower relative amplitude. The findings provide a foundation for the search for candidate endophenotypes and the development of novel interventions for bipolar disorder.
Topics: Actigraphy; Bipolar Disorder; Humans; Polysomnography; Sleep Disorders, Circadian Rhythm
PubMed: 25060968
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2014.06.006