Table 2.

Studies comparing CBT-I to pharmacological therapies: post-treatment results

Study Follow-up & method	Group, N	Sleep latency	Total sleep time	Total wake time	Sleep efficiency	Other	Adverse effects	Notes
CBT-I vs. zopiclone						SWS
Sievertsen 2006 [29] 6 weeks	CBT-I: 18	Not reported	–26.2 min	–56.4 min	+7.5%	+17.2 min	None
	Zopiclone: 16		–65.6 min	–3.9 min	–0.8%	–15.1 min	1 withdrawal
			p = NS	p < 0.001	p = NS	p = 0.002
Polysomnography
Sleep diary	CBT-I: 18	Not reported	+16.9 min	–48.3 min	+11.8%
	Zopiclone: 16		+34.6 min	–25.8 min	+8.1%
			p = NS	p = NS	p = NS
CBT-I vs. zolpidem
Jacobs 2004 [30]	CBT-I: 13	–15.5 min	–2.6 min	Not reported	+5.5%		No withdrawals due to side effects	p values based on number of patients with satisfactory latency or efficiency
8 weeks	Zolpidem: 12	–6.1 min	–51.6 min		+2.1%
Sleep monitor		p = NS	p = NR		p = NS
Sleep diary	CBT-I: 13	–33.8 min	+48.6 min	Not reported	+17.3%
	Zolpidem: 12	–12.8 min	+69.2 min		+2.1%
		p < 0.05	p = NR		p = 0.007
CBT-I vs. temazepam						WASO
Wu 2006 [32]	CBT-I: 19	–35.9 min	+21.6 min	Not reported	+9.2%		Not reported	p values based on post-intervention differences
8 weeks	Temazepam: 17	–44.9 min	+66.5 min		+14.3%
Polysomnography		p < 0.01	p < 0.004		p < 0.05
Sleep diary	CBT-I: 19	–37.0 min	+38.7 min	Not reported	+13.4%
	Temazepam: 17	–53.2 min	+73.5 min		+15.1%
		p < 0.001	p < 0.01		p < 0.01
Morin 1999 [31]	CBT-I: 18	Not reported	+6.8 min	Not reported	+8.5%	–32.5 min	Not reported
8 weeks	Temazepam: 17		+35.3 min		+7.5%	–23.3 min
Polysomnography			p = NS		p = NS	p = NS
Sleep diary	CBT-I: 18	Not reported	+30.5 min	Not reported	+16.5%	–27.3 min
	Temazepam: 17		+43.7 min		+10.3%	–25.6 min
			p = NS		p = NS	p = NS
CBT-I vs. triazolam
McCluskey 1991 [33]	CBT-I: 15	–44 min	+40 min	Not reported	Not reported		Not reported
3 weeks	Triazolam :15	–45 min	+57 min
Sleep diary		p = NS	p = NS

SWS Slow wave sleep, WASO Wake after sleep onset.