Abstract
Introduction
Current hypnotic agents have next‐day residual effects. The new orexin antagonist, suvorexant, has little muscle relaxation effect on the physical and cognitive function in the following morning and daytime. In this study, the effects of suvorexant, zolpidem, ramelteon and placebo in elderly subjects were evaluated.
Methods
Six men and eight women aged 63–75 years received a single tablet and lights were then turned off. Subjects were instructed to sleep from 23:00–6:00 with an interruption from 4:00–4:30 for evaluations. Suvorexant 10 mg, zolpidem 5 mg, ramelteon 4 mg or placebo was administered single time in a randomized, double‐blind and crossover design with a one‐week drug holiday in between each drug. Measures of objective parameters and subjective ratings were obtained every 2 h from 4:00 to 16:00.
Result
No subjects showed serious side effects from physical observations and vital sign checks before and after hypnotics were taken. During the first sleep period, the REM sleep time with suvorexant was especially longer than that with zolpidem. During the second sleep period, suvorexant had shorter sleep latency and longer stage2 sleep time than ramelteon and zolpidem, respectively. During the whole entire sleep, the REM sleep time with suvorexant was longer than zolpidem and placebo. For the body sway test with closed eye, the main effects of the medicines and zolpidem were significantly better than suvorexant and ramelteon.
Conclusion
The changes of physical and cognitive functions in healthy elderly after taking hypnotics were not remarkable. Therefore, these three hypnotics maybe appropriate for the elderly people with insomnia for single‐time low dose administration.
Keywords: hypnotics, residual effects, sleep, suvorexant, zolpidem
1. INTRODUCTION
It has been reported that the prevalence of insomnia among the adults in Japan is 17.3%‐21.5%, of which the frequency of use of hypnotics is 3.5%‐5.4%. 1 , 2 , 3 It has been pointed out that the use of hypnotics is associated with falls 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and cognitive impairments 8 of the elderly. Under these circumstances, appropriate guidelines were provided recently on the use of hypnotics for the elderly in Japan. 9
The GABAa agonists, benzodiazepines and non‐benzodiazepines (e.g., zolpidem), have a muscle‐relaxing action and are therefore considered to have a high risk of falls. 10 , 11 , 12 The above Japanese guidelines currently recommend the melatonin agonist, ramelteon, and the orexin antagonist, suvorexant. 9 Ramelteon has the advantage of little muscle relaxant effect. 13 , 14 Suvorexant has a long half‐life (10 h) with little muscle‐relaxing action, 15 , 16 and is considered to have a low risk of falls due to muscle relaxation during mid‐sleep awakening. It is also considered to be advantageous for sleep disturbances such as wake after sleep onset (WASO) and early morning wakefulness, which are common among elderly people.
Several studies have examined the motor and cognitive functions of the elderly after taking hypnotics. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 Furthermore, few studies have been conducted on the psychomotor function at night or in the early morning when the fall is likely to occur due to the residual effect of hypnotics. 21 , 22
Previously, we conducted research on a group of GABAa agonists, zolpidem, eszopiclone, triazolam, rilmazafone, zaleplon and the melatonin agonist, ramelteon (not published yet). 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 As a result, single use of these hypnotics was useful for young and elderly subjects. 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26
In this study, we conducted an experiment using EEG, and physical and cognitive functions tests with the recommended hypnotics with a weak muscle relaxant effect. Then, we investigated hypnotics for safety in the elderly subjects using melatonin agonist ramelteon, orexin antagonist suvorexant and GABAa agonist zolpidem.
2. METHODS
2.1. Design
We conducted a single‐blind pharmacokinetic assessment of 5 mg zolpidem (half‐life: 2.6 h), 10 mg suvorexant (12 h) and 4 mg ramelteon (1‐2.5 h) 27 in the same subjects (Figure 1) in a randomized, double‐blinded, active‐ and placebo‐controlled manner for 4 weeks. We were approved by Akita University Ethics Committee. This study was carried out in accordance with the principles based on the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
FIGURE 1.
Overview of protocol subjects were randomized to treatment sequences including zolpidem 5 mg, suvorexant 10 mg, and ramelteon 4 mg, and placebo administered in a crossover fashion, with a 6‐day washout period between each treatment. Hypnotics or placebo were orally administered to each subject at bedtime (23:00) and lights were then turned off. On the morning following the administration, lights were turned on at 04:00 and 06:00 (5 and 7 h post medication). Measurement of objective parameters and subjective parameters were obtained beginning at 22:00 (1 h pre‐medication) on Day 1. Subjects remained in the recording room from early in the evening of administration until 17 h post‐dose. All subjects took the same breakfast. The experiment was conducted in a local hotel room. The bedroom temperature was 23°C, the humidity was 38%, and the illumination was 200–300 lux before bedtime. Subjects were instructed to sleep from 23:00 to 6:00 with interruption from 4:00 to 4:30. We prepared the same sleepwear and bedding for them every evening. Dynamic and static balance indexes, objective assessment (CFF, FRT, TUG, body sway test, SDR, STM) and subjective (SSS, VAS) evaluations were performed. Please refer to the method section for details
2.2. Subjects
We recruited healthy 60–75 years old Japanese subjects who fell asleep between 20:00 and 24:00 (Table 1), confirmed by their physical examination, medical history and hematology, and clinical biochemical tests. Any subject who took hypnotics within the previous year are addicted to drugs or alcohol or had a history of repeated falls or a fracture within the past two years was excluded from our study. In total, six men and eight women were enrolled following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The subjects were advised to refrain from strenuous or unaccustomed exercise during the day.
TABLE 1.
Demographic date of subjects
| List | Average ± SD |
| age | 68.0 ± 3.4 years old (63 ‐75 years old) |
| gender | 6 Males, 8 Females |
| Body Mass Index (BMI) | 22.65 ± 2.6 kg/m2 |
| high | 158.7 ± 10.3 ㎝ |
| Weight | 57.2 ± 9.4㎏ |
| medication | Antihypertensive(6) ∙ Analgesic(2) ∙ No medication(6) |
| Regular bedtime | 11:37 pm |
| Regular awakening hours | 5:51 am |
| Difficulty getting to sleep | Yes(4) ∙ No(10) |
| Arousal during sleep | Yes(2) ∙ No(12) |
| Early morning awaking | Yes(1) |
| Sleep quality | Good(2) ∙ Not bad (4) ∙ No response (8) |
| Well‐being | Good(5) ∙ Fair(3) ∙ not bad(1) ∙ No response (5) |
We advised the subjects to refrain from prescribed and non‐prescribed medications and supplements. They were also advised to limit their alcohol consumption to two glasses of wine or two small bottles of beer per day. They abstained from alcoholic drinks two days before the admission to the unit or before prestudy and poststudy visit. Caffeine and nicotine were prohibited 1 day before each visit. Four subjects had difficulty falling asleep, two woke up during sleep and one woke up early among 14 subjects.
2.3. Procedure
The medication sequences were randomized when administered to the subjects; however, the amounts were kept the same: suvorexant 10 mg, ramelteon 4 mg and placebo with a 6‐day washout period in between each medication. The subjects took the hypnotics or placebo at bedtime (23:00) and lights were then turned off. In the morning following the administration, lights were turned on at 4:00 and 6:00 (5 and 7 h post administration) (Figure 1). On Day 1, we measured the objective parameters and subjective parameters 1 h before the medication at 22:00. The subjects stayed in a local hotel room, from early evening until 17 h after the administration. They all ate the same breakfast. The bedroom temperature was kept at 23°C; the humidity 38%; and the illumination 200–300 Lux before bedtime. Subjects were instructed to sleep from23:00 to 6:00 with an interruption from 4:00 to 4:30. We prepared the same sleepwear and bedding for them every evening.
2.4. Sleep evaluation
Before the experiments, we evaluated their sleep based on the Japanese version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI‐J) 28 , 29 and confirmed that subjects had no sleep disorders. We also evaluated their sleep schedule cycle and chose the intermediate type, based on the Morningness‐Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) 30 which subjects had completed in advance.
All patients underwent an overnight polysomnography (PSG) monitoring on experimental nights (Figure 2), which was obtained using a single‐channel electroencephalogram (EEG) (MOOMIN‐KEI; Sleep Well Co., Osaka, Japan,) as previously described. 31 According to protocol, 32 the recorded nights were divided into 30s sequential periods and manually classified into rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and non‐REM sleep, which was further classified into light sleep (N1, N2) or slow wave sleep (N3). Total sleep time (TST) was calculated as the total sleep period minus the wake time after sleep onset (WASO). Sleep onset was defined by the first occurrence of stage 2 sleep, which was followed by 5 min of continuous sleep composed of stage 1, 2, 3, or REM sleep.
FIGURE 2.
(A) Cumulative display of sleep architecture in all 14 subjects. The percentage of subjects in each sleep stage is shown. Wake (W) is indiated in black; REM (R), red; stage 1 (N1), gray; stage 2 (N2), light blue; and stage 3 (N3), dark blue. We instructed the subjects to go to bed at 23:00 after taking the medication. Then, the subjects were forced awake at 04:00 for various tests, allowed to go back to sleep at 04:30 and finally woken up at 6:00. (B) Percentage of sleep stages in both sleep periods. Suvorexant had longer REM sleep time during 1st periods (23:00‐4:00, p=0.001, indicated in red bar) than zolpidem
2.5. Objective assessments
Dynamic and static balance indexes, cognitive and subjective evaluations were performed. It has been confirmed that the dynamic balance indicators TUG and FRT reflect falls in the elderly. 33 , 34 The following results are depicted in the supplementary figures S2 and S3.
[Correction added on 12 August 2022, after first online publication: In the objective assessments section, the text were corrected from “This is depicted to Fig. 4” to “The following results are depicted in the supplementary Figures S2 and S3”.]
2.5.1. The timed up and go test (TUG test)
The TUG test was performed according to the method described by Podsiadlo and Richardson. 34 Participants had to stand up from a sitting position (height of chair = 40 cm) and walk 3 m along a line, perform a 180° turn, and walk back to the chair and sit down; this was timed. The TUG tests were conducted twice, and the best time (where appropriate) was used. Smaller values were better results for TUG.
2.5.2. Functional reach test (FRT)
In the FRT, the protocol described by Duncan et al. 33 was applied and a GB‐200R (OG giken) was used. Each participant was positioned with one arm raised at 90° and fingers extended. A yardstick was mounted on the wall at shoulder height.
The distance that a participant could reach while extending forward from the initial upright posture to the maximal anterior leaning posture without moving or lifting the feet was visually measured in centimeters (cm), according to where the middle fingertip was positioned on the mounted yardstick. The distances were measured for two attempts, and these were averaged to obtain the FR score. Larger values were better results for FRT.
2.5.3. Body sway test
Body sway test (cm) reflects the standing balance using a stabilometric platform [Zebris WinFDM system (platform), Zebris Medical GmbH, Isny imAllgau, Germany; Foot Print for WindowsR (software), Inter Reha, Tokyo, Japan]. Subjects stood on the platform for 30 seconds (s) in bare feet and with their vision fixed at a point 2 m in front of them at eye level (eyes open) or with their eyes closed.
The sum of the tracks of the center of gravity is the body sway test; the extent of movement of the center of pressure directly relates to the subject’s ability to maintain static balance. For the body sway test, smaller values were better in terms of functionality of the subject.
2.5.4. Critical flicker fusion test (CFF)
This test is believed to assess the integrative capacity of the central nervous system (CNS) under the influence of psychoactive compounds. Subjects were required to discriminate flicker from fusion, and vice versa, of four light‐emitting diodes arranged in a 1 cm square on a black background. Individual thresholds were determined by the psychophysical method of limits on two ascending (flicker to fusion) and two descending (fusion to flicker) scales. 35 The mean of these two ascending and two descending presentations was used as the threshold frequency in Hz. A decreased threshold was indicative of impairment.
2.5.5. Simple discrimination reaction (SDR) test
The SDR test is included in a performance test software program (Human Response Checker, NoruPro Light Systems, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) to measure the reaction time and hand–eye coordination skills of the subjects.
Subjects were required to right click on a mouse when a blue circle was lit, or left click when a white circle was lit, as quickly as possible. The mean total reaction time (s) and the rate of correct answer (%) of 60 trials were recorded. An increase (slowing) in reaction time was indicative of impairment. The test has been shown to be sensitive to psychoactive compounds. Smaller values were better, in terms of functionality of the subject for SDR reaction time, while larger values were better for SDR accuracy rate (%).
2.5.6. Short‐term memory (STM) test
The STM test has been shown to reflect the retention of short‐term memory. Prior to the study, the subjects underwent an extensive training session to preclude learning effects.
This test is included in the performance test software program: Human Response Checker (NoruPro Light Systems, Inc.). Subjects were required to click the right mouse button when the same number that was displayed three times before the current one appeared or click the left mouse button when a different number appeared. The rate (%) of correct answers in 60 trials was recorded. A decrease in correct answers was indicative of impairment.
2.6. Subjective assessments
2.6.1. Stanford sleepiness scale (SSS) and visual analog scale (VAS)
The subjects' sleepiness was evaluated using the SSS. 36 Alertness, well‐being, and fatigue were evaluated with a VAS at 22:00 (Day 1) and every 2 h from 4:00 to 16:00 (i.e., 4:00, 6:00, 8:00, 10:00, 12:00, 14:00, 16:00) (Day 2). The scale’s extremes were “very drowsy– very alert,” “very bad–very good,” and “very tired–very rested.” In terms of functionality of the subject for the SSS, smaller values were better, while larger values were better for the VAS.
2.7. Safety
Physical examinations, vital sign measurements, laboratory tests to ensure safety, and 12‐lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) were performed prestudy and poststudy. In addition, laboratory tests to ensure safety were performed prior to dosing, and vital signs were measured during each treatment period. Subjects were monitored for adverse experiences throughout the study. For each adverse event, the investigator indicated whether or not they thought the event was drug related. This determination was made while the investigator was blinded to the treatment.
2.8. Statistical methods
For statistical analysis, a two‐way ANOVA was used, with hypnotics and time as factors. After checking for interaction, a multiple comparison was performed using Bonferroni for the main effects of the medicines or times. Since SDR and sleep evaluations scores were not normally distributed, non‐parametric analysis (Freedman) and a post hoc test (Steel‐Dwass) were used for the statistical calculation. The statistical significance level was P < 0.05.
3. RESULTS
Throughout this study, no subjects showed serious side effects from physical observations and vital sign checks performed before and after hypnotics were taken.
Cumulative display of sleep architecture in all 14 subjects is presented (Figure 2). The percentage of subjects in each sleep stage is shown. We instructed the subjects to go to bed at 23:00 after taking the medications. Then, the subjects were forced awake at 04:00 for various tests, allowed to go back to sleep at 04:30 and finally woken up at 6:00.
During 23:00–4:00 period, the main effects of medicines were seen for the REM latency (P = 0.049) with no significant differences between each compound (Table 2; Figure 3A). For the REM sleep time, the main effects of all the medicines (P = 0.001) were seen. The REM sleep time with suvorexant were especially longer than that with zolpidem (P = 0.001) (Table 2; Figure 2B; Figure 3B). In 23:00–6:00 periods, the REM sleep time with suvorexant were especially longer than that with zolpidem and placebo (P = 0.002, P = 0.017, respectively, Figure 3B; Table S1).
TABLE 2.
EEG results (23:00–4:00)
| Zolpidem | Suvorexant | Ramelteon | Placebo | R‐ANOVA / freedman test, P | Post‐hoc test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | ||||
| TST | (m) | 269.8 | 6.8 | 274.6 | 4.9 | 273.2 | 4.2 | 270.3 | 5.5 | ns | |
| SL | (m) | 13.0 | 1.8 | 14.8 | 2.2 | 14.8 | 2.8 | 13.3 | 2.2 | ns | |
| REML | (m) | 114.3 | 14.2 | 73.6 | 6.1 | 86.6 | 14.2 | 100.2 | 11.4 | 0.049 | ns |
| WASOT | (time) | 4.5 | 0.7 | 5.8 | 0.8 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 5.9 | 1.2 | ns | |
| WASO | (m) | 5.6 | 1.4 | 8.6 | 2.6 | 9.9 | 2.1 | 13.8 | 3.6 | ns | |
| SE | (%) | 89.2 | 2.2 | 90.0 | 1.4 | 89.7 | 1.3 | 88.4 | 1.8 | ns | |
| REM | (m) | 36.9 | 4.0 | 61.4 | 2.9 | 47.6 | 4.4 | 46.4 | 5.2 | 0.001 |
Z < S (0.001) |
| N1 | (m) | 68.1 | 7.9 | 59.3 | 5.8 | 79.3 | 9.9 | 78.4 | 11.4 | ns | |
| N2 | (m) | 137.8 | 7.0 | 127.8 | 6.2 | 127.7 | 6.1 | 117.3 | 7.8 | ns | |
| N3 | (m) | 27.0 | 6.7 | 26.1 | 6.1 | 18.6 | 5.0 | 28.1 | 6.7 | 0.006 | ns |
FIGURE 3.
PSG results of REM sleep in 4 conditions, (A) for the REM Latency (23:00‐4:00), the main effects of all the medicines (P = 0.049) were seen. (B) The REM sleep time with suvorexant were especially longer than that with zolpidem (23:00‐4:00, P = 0.001). The main effects of all the medicines (P = 0.001) were seen (23:00‐6:00). The REM sleep time (min) with suvorexant was longer than those with zolpidem and placebo using post hoc test (P = 0.002, P = 0.017, respectively)
For the stage3 NREM sleep, the main effects of medicines were found (P = 0.006); however, the significant differences were not found between each compound (Table 2; Figure 2B; Figure S1A). The time in bed, total sleep time, sleep latency, and sleep efficiency were not significantly different among all the conditions from 23:00 to 4:00 (Table 2).
During 4:30–6:00 period, the main effects of medicines were seen for TST (P = 0.039), with no significant differences between each compound (Table 3; Figure 2B). The main effects of medicines were seen for SL (P = 0.011), SL of suvorexant was significantly shorter than of ramelteon with post hoc test (P = 0.036, Table 3; Figure 4). The main effects of medicines were seen for the N2 sleep stage time (P = 0.035), with no significant differences between each compound (Table 3; Figure 2B; Figure S1B).
TABLE 3.
EEG results (4:30–6:00)
| Zolpidem | Suvorexant | Ramelteon | Placebo | Freedman test / R‐ANOVA, P | Post‐hoc test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | ||||
| TST | (m) | 48.0 | 5.9 | 66.8 | 4.6 | 56.6 | 4.8 | 52.5 | 5.8 | 0.039 | ns |
| SL | (m) | 19.2 | 3.9 | 10.3 | 1.6 | 24.8 | 4.2 | 21.2 | 3.6 | 0.011 |
S < R (0.036) |
| REM | (m) | 5.0 | 2.0 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 2.1 | 5.1 | 2.0 | ns | ns |
| N1 | (m) | 25.8 | 4.0 | 24.8 | 1.6 | 28.0 | 2.8 | 26.8 | 3.3 | ns | ns |
| N2 | (m) | 17.1 | 4.2 | 30.5 | 2.5 | 23.5 | 3.4 | 20.3 | 3.6 | 0.035 |
ns (Z<S; 0.065) |
Notes: Mean time of each sleep stage in 14 subjects. The time of subjects in each sleep stage is shown. The subjects were forced awake at 04:00 and went back to sleep at around 04:30. During this 30 min period, the subjects took objective and subjective examinations.
TST: The main effects of medicines were seen for TST, with no significant differences between each compound (P = 0.039).
Stage 2 sleep: The main effects of medicines were seen for stage2 sleep time (P = 0.035). Suvorexant was marginally longer than zolpidem with post hoc test (P = 0.065).
FIGURE 4.
Comparisons of sleep latencies (SL) between the first and the second sleep periods The main effects of medicines were not seen for the first SL. The main effects of medicines were seen for 2nd SL (P = 0.011), and the 2nd SL of suvorexant was significantly shorter than that of ramelteon with post hoc test (P = 0.036). [Correction added on 12 August 2022, after first online publication: The last sentence for Figure 4 legend has been amended and was originally ‘The main effects of medicines were seen for 2nd SL (0.011), suvorexant was significantly longer than ramelteon with post hoc test (P = 0.036)”.]
As for the objective indexes, the main effect in time was observed from all the hypnotics; especially at 4:00 and 6:00, the time main effects were observed in TUG (P = 0.002), Body sway test Eyes open (P=0.002),CFF (P = 0.0001), SDR‐time (P = 0.01) and STM (P = 0.02) examination without variance among the medications (Table 4; Figure S3). For the body sway test (closed eyes), we found the main effects of the medicine (P = 0.012) (Table 4; Figure 5), which showed body sway movements after zolpidem administration were significantly less than after suvorexant and ramelteon administrations (P = 0.03, P = 0.04). The other parameters showed no significant differences from the main effects of the medicine (Table 4; Figures S2 and S3).
TABLE 4.
Objective assessments
| Zolpidem | Suvorexant | Ramelteon | Placebo | Drug Main effect, P | Drug Post hoc test | Time Main effect | Time Post hoc test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | Mean | SEM | ||||||
| TUG | (sec) | 4.7 | 0.2 | 4.7 | 0.2 | 4.6 | 0.2 | 4.6 | 0.2 | ns | 0.002 |
4>6* 4>10* 4>14* |
|
| FRT | (cm) | 42.1 | 1.2 | 41.9 | 1.3 | 42.3 | 1.4 | 41.4 | 1.4 | ns | ns | ||
| Body sway test Eyes open | (cm) | 42.5 | 2.4 | 45.8 | 3.0 | 46.6 | 3.3 | 45.6 | 3.3 | ns | 0.002 | 4>6* | |
| Body sway test Eyes closed | (cm) | 60.0 | 4.6 | 67.3 | 6.5 | 70.7 | 7.5 | 64.1 | 5.8 | 0.012 |
* Z<S * Z<R |
ns | |
| CFF | (Hz) | 32.7 | 0.6 | 32.7 | 0.7 | 32.2 | 0.5 | 32.6 | 0.6 | ns | 0.000 |
22>6* 22>10** 22>14* |
|
| SDR | (%) | 92.6 | 2.1 | 92.7 | 1.9 | 92.7 | 2.5 | 91.8 | 2.5 | ns | ns | ||
| (s) | 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.49 | 0.01 | ns | 0.01 | ns | ||
| STM | (%) | 72.2 | 3.4 | 76.1 | 3.7 | 73.5 | 3.9 | 74.1 | 3.8 | ns | 0.02 | ns | |
Note: R‐2way ANOVA & Bonferroni.
*P < 0.05
**P < 0.01
FIGURE 5.
Objective assessment: Body sway test (eyes closed) For the body sway test (closed eyes), we found the main effects of the medicine (P = 0.012), which showed body sway movements after zolpidem administration were significantly less than after suvorexant and ramelteon administrations
As for the subjective indexes, the main effect in time was observed from all the hypnotics and placebo (P < 0.01) (Tables S2 and Figure S4). However, the subjective index measurements from the hypnotics were below the significant level.
4. DISCUSSION
In the present study, to enhance the assay sensitivity for residual effects, forced awakening at 4:00 was targeted when the elderly subjects tend to go to rest room. After waking up, all subjects maintained a wakeful state to complete the tests (4:00–4:30).
During first period, suvorexant had short REM latency and long REM sleep time, as previously reported (P = 0.049, P = 0.001, respectively, Table 2; Figure 3), which suggested that the mechanism of action is vastly contributed by orexin antagonism. 37 For the N3 NREM sleep during first sleep period, the main effects of medicines were found (P = 0.006); however, significant differences were not found between each compound, ramelteon had shortest N3 sleep time (Table 2; Figure S1). Ramelteon is a melatonin receptor agonist that acts on the melatonin receptors, and regulates sleep and circadian rhythm; thus, continuous administration is reported to be more effective. Therefore, a single administration as in this study would have weak effect on sleep, especially stage3 NREM sleep. 13 The time in bed, TST, SL, and sleep efficiency were not significantly different among all the conditions from 23:00 to 4:00 (Table 2).
During second period, the main effects of medicines were seen for TST (P = 0.039, Table 3). The main effects of medicines were seen for SL and N2 sleep time (P = 0.011, P = 0.035). SL of suvorexant was significantly shorter than that of ramelteon with post hoc test (P = 0.036, Table 3; Figure 2B; Figure 4). However, there were no significant differences between each compound in N2 sleep time (Table 3).
A significant difference was observed in REM sleep time between suvorexant and zolpidem. It could be speculated that zolpidem suppresses REM sleep while suvorexant increases REM sleep. 16 , 37 , 38 Orexin receptor antagonists establish a sleep‐permissive state in insomniac patients by specifically blocking the wake‐promoting effects of orexin peptides. 16 , 39 , 40 In contrast, GABAergic agonists such as zolpidem increase neuronal inhibitory tone, promoting sleep but also impacting neurophysiological activity in a widespread, non‐specific manner throughout the central nervous system. 41 Among the GABAergic agonists currently prescribed, zolpidem was selected as a positive control because this compound is one of the most prescribed hypnotics in Japan. 42 , 43
When the subjects were allowed to go back to sleep at 4:30, suvorexant had shorter SL than ramelteon, since the half‐life of suvorexant (12 h) was longer than that of ramelteon (1‐2 h; Figure 2A). 43 Although it is not clear whether short SL has a positive correlation with longer N2 sleep, it could be speculated that since the subjects fell asleep in short duration, it was possible for a longer N2 sleep time under the influence of suvorexant (Figure 2).
In the objective measurements, body sway movements with their eyes closed after zolpidem administration were significantly less than after suvorexant and ramelteon administrations (Table 4; Figure 5). Other parameters of subjective and objective measurements were not significantly different (Table S2; Figures S4).
It has been pointed out that there is a relationship between hypnotics and motor and cognitive dysfunctions of the elderly. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 The present study examined the safety of low dose of hypnotics from early morning to afternoon on the next day when the side effects tend to occur. Not only the previous studies reported that low doses were effective in improving total sleep time and sleep latencies, but also they are currently recommended dosage by physicians. 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 It was assumed that the physical‐ and cognitive‐function tasks were performed under the influence of the hypnotic agents; especially at 4:00 and 6:00, when main effects were observed in TUG (P = 0.002), Body sway test; eyes open (P=0.002), CFF (P = 0.0001), SDR‐time (P = 0.01) and STM (P = 0.02) examinations without variance among the medications (Table 4; Figure 5). There were no serious adverse events. Therefore, it is considered that these three drugs are not problematic for the elderly to take a single dose administration.
Previous reports of hypnotics and falls have reported that suvorexant and ramelteon are safer than GABAa hypnotics, but they are also reported to be more dangerous, and thus, are inconsistent. 14 , 49 , 50 From the clinical data of the real world, the inconsistencies were reported by Ishigo et al. 50 that suvorexant and ramelteon were better than GABAa hypnotics for prevention of falls from their case‐crossover study. Both case‐control and case‐crossover studies by Torii et al. 14 addressed those patients performed better under the influence of suvorexant than of ramelteon or GABAa hypnotics; whereas Ishibashi et al. 49 reported that ramelteon should be more recommended than suvorexant or GABAa hypnotics through a case‐crossover study.
There were no significant drug differences in the dynamic balance parameters, FRT, and TUG, which are the optimal indices of falls. 33 , 34 On the contrary, zolpidem had significantly less movement than ramelteon and suvorexant in body sway test with closed eyes, which is often used in the side effect evaluation of medicines. Since there was no difference between the three drugs in the dynamic balance, it is unclear why there was a significant difference only in the eyes closed static balance. Similar results were seen in the previous study of Sol et al. 37 Suvorexant exerts a therapeutic effect in insomnia through antagonism at the orexin receptors. Unlike benzodiazepines and non‐benzodiazepines, suvorexant and ramelteon do not affect the GABA system, so they have little muscle relaxant effect and respiratory depression are considered to be relatively safe for elderly people. 51 , 52 , 53
Although it has been reported that suvorexant carried over at 15 mg 54 , 55 there was no carry‐over for the 10 mg that we used in this study. 56 Considering the subjective indexes, the main effect of time was observed in all hypnotics, but the main effects of the hypnotics and placebo were not significantly different.
As mentioned above, the subjects were administered with a low single dosage of each medication in between a week of washout period. Even though we administered only once with low dosage, we cannot rule out the possibility that there could be interaction of kinetics of different active agents affecting our test results.
Based on the above results, the changes of physical and cognitive functions in healthy elderly after taking hypnotics in this single low dosage administration were not remarkable during the night after the administrations and its following day.
4.1. Limitations
The next‐day residual effects of the commercially available hypnotics in Japan, following a bedtime single dosing in healthy elderly subjects, were evaluated. Since we conducted this study with a low, single dosage, we need to take into account of the lack of dose response. The influences of continuous hypnotic use also need to be considered. Since elderly patients are quite often administered with long‐term hypnotics; of some are prescribed with multiple medications, further studies should be investigated. We performed the tests on highly selective and few relatively young elderly subjects without any insomnia; thus, there should be further investigations comparing low doses of zolpidem, suvorexant, and ramelteon on older elderly subjects with insomnia. The setting we used was not home based, but in a hotel, which should also be considered as a caveat.
5. CONCLUSION
From these results, no adverse side effects were observed with a single dose of the zolpidem, suvorexant, and ramelteon in the elderly. Suvorexant had significantly longer REM sleep than zolpidem. Zolpidem had significantly less movement than ramelteon and suvorexant in body sway test with eyes closed. Ramelteon did not show clear differences from other compounds. Therefore, these three hypnotics of single low dosage administration would not be a risk for the elderly people with insomnia. Physicians should be advised to recommend the patients with proper guidelines which introduce merits and demerits of each medication not only for sleep but also for activity during the following day.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Sachiko Ito Uemura, Takashi Kanbayashi and Seiji Nishino is Conceived and designed the experiments; Sachiko Ito Uemura, Aya Imanishi, Yoshino Terui, Masahiro Satakea, and Takashi Kanbayashi is Performed the experiments; Sachiko Ito Uemura, Takashi Kanbayashi, and Seiji Nishino is Analyzed the data; Takanobu Shioyad, Takashi Kanbayashi, Insung Park, and GoEun Hanc is Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Sachiko Ito Uemura, Takashi Kanbayashi and Seiji Nishino is Wrote the paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The ICMJE Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest associated with this article can be viewed by clicking on the following link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.05.021. Takashi Kanbayashi has received research grants from Eisai and speaker’s honoraria from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, MSD, Takeda, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma and Eisai. Other authors do not have conflict of interest.
APPROVAL OF THE RESEARCH PROTOCOL
This study was approved by Akita University Ethics Committee (No.1580).
INFORMED CONSENT
This study was carried out in accordance with the principles based on the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
REGISTRATION NO. OF THE STUDY
This study is registered in University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN:R000053801).
ANIMAL STUDIES
This study was strictly clinical; hence, there were no animal studies.
Supporting information
Data S1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was approved by Akita University Ethics Committee. This study was carried out in accordance with the principles based on the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
Uemura SI, Imanishi A, Terui Y, Park I, Satake M, Han G, Residual effects of low dose of suvorexant, zolpidem, and ramelteon in healthy elderly subjects: A randomized double‐blind study. Neuropsychopharmacol Rep. 2022;42:288–298. 10.1002/npr2.12262
Funding Information
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (C): 16 K01496 for Sachiko Uemura, AMED under Grant Number JP19dm0908001, JP20dm0107162, JP21zf0127005 and JSPS KAKENHI Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research (C): 19 K08037 for Takashi Kanbayashi
Contributor Information
Sachiko Ito Uemura, Email: uemura@hs.akita-u.ac.jp.
Takashi Kanbayashi, Email: kanbayashi.ta.fn@u.tsukuba.ac.jp.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. The IRB did not grant the deposit of raw data in a publicly accessible data archive or repository at the time of approval since the procedure was not included in the study protocol or informed consent document.
REFERENCES
- 1. Doi YMM, Okawa M, Uchiyama M. Prevalence of sleep disturbance and hypnotic medication use in relation to sociodemographic factors in the general Japanese adult population. J Epidemiol. 2000;10(2):79–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Kaneita Y, Uchiyama M, Takemura S, Yokoyama E, Miyake T, Harano S, et al. Use of alcohol and hypnotic medication as aids to sleep among the Japanese general population. Sleep Med. 2007;8(7–8):723–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Kim K, Uchiyama M, Okawa M, Liu X, Ogihara R. An epidemiological study of insomnia among the Japanese general population. Sleep. 2000;23(1):41–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bauer TK, Lindenbaum K, Stroka MA, Engel S, Linder R, Verheyen F. Fall risk increasing drugs and injuries of the frail elderly ‐ evidence from administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(12):1321–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Landi F, Onder G, Cesari M, Barillaro C, Russo A, Bernabei R. Psychotropic medications and risk for falls among community‐dwelling frail older people: an observational study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005;60(5):622–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Roy AN, Smith M. Prevalence and cost of insomnia in a state Medicaid fee‐for‐service population based on diagnostic codes and prescription utilization. Sleep Med. 2010;11(5):462–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. van der Velde N, Meerding WJ, Looman CW, Pols HA, van der Cammen TJ. Cost effectiveness of withdrawal of fall‐risk‐increasing drugs in geriatric outpatients. Drugs Aging. 2008;25(6):521–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Airagnes G, Pelissolo A, Lavallée M, Flament M, Limosin F. Benzodiazepine misuse in the elderly: risk factors, consequences, and management. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18(10):89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Kojima T, Mizukami K, Tomita N, Arai H, Ohrui T, Eto M, et al. Screening tool for older Persons' appropriate prescriptions for Japanese: report of the Japan geriatrics society working group on "guidelines for medical treatment and its safety in the elderly". Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16(9):983–1001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Bakken MS, Engeland A, Engesæter LB, Ranhoff AH, Hunskaar S, Ruths S. Risk of hip fracture among older people using anxiolytic and hypnotic drugs: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;70(7):873–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Mets MA, Volkerts ER, Olivier B, Verster JC. Effect of hypnotic drugs on body balance and standing steadiness. Sleep Med Rev. 2010;14(4):259–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Tamiya H, Yasunaga H, Matusi H, Fushimi K, Ogawa S, Akishita M. Hypnotics and the occurrence of bone fractures in hospitalized dementia patients: a matched case‐control study using a National Inpatient Database. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kuriyama A, Honda M, Hayashino Y. Ramelteon for the treatment of insomnia in adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Sleep Med. 2014;15(4):385–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Torii H, Ando M, Tomita H, Kobaru T, Tanaka M, Fujimoto K, et al. Association of Hypnotic Drug use with fall incidents in hospitalized elderly patients: a case‐crossover study. Biol Pharm Bull. 2020;43(6):925–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Coleman PJ, Gotter AL, Herring WJ, Winrow CJ, Renger JJ. The discovery of Suvorexant, the first orexin receptor drug for insomnia. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2017;57:509–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Gotter AL, Garson SL, Stevens J, Munden RL, Fox SV, Tannenbaum PL, et al. Differential sleep‐promoting effects of dual orexin receptor antagonists and GABAA receptor modulators. BMC Neurosci. 2014;15:109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Otmani S, Metzger D, Guichard N, Danjou P, Nir T, Zisapel N, et al. Effects of prolonged‐release melatonin and zolpidem on postural stability in older adults. Hum Psychopharmacol. 2012;27(3):270–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Verster JC, Volkerts ER, Schreuder AH, Eijken EJ, van Heuckelum JH, Veldhuijzen DS, et al. Residual effects of middle‐of‐the‐night administration of zaleplon and zolpidem on driving ability, memory functions, and psychomotor performance. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2002;22(6):576–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Boyle J, Danjou P, Alexander R, Calder N, Gargano C, Agrawal N, et al. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics and night‐time effects on postural sway and critical flicker fusion of gaboxadol and zolpidem in elderly subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;67(2):180–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Allain H, Bentué‐Ferrer D, Tarral A, Gandon JM. Effects on postural oscillation and memory functions of a single dose of zolpidem 5 mg, zopiclone 3.75 mg and lormetazepam 1 mg in elderly healthy subjects. A randomized, cross‐over, double‐blind study versus placebo. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;59(3):179–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Uemura SI, Kanbayashi T, Wakasa M, Satake M, Ito W, Shimizu K, et al. Residual effects of zolpidem, triazolam, rilmazafone and placebo in healthy elderly subjects: a randomized double‐blind study. Sleep Med. 2015;16(11):1395–402. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Inomata S, Ito SU, Wakasa M, Osawa Y, Shimizu K, Ito W, et al. The effects of triazolam and rilmazafone on the physical and cognitive functions in healthy elderly persons. Akita J Med. 2011;38(2):63–9. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Ito SU, Kanbayashi T, Takemura T, Kondo H, Inomata S, Szilagyi G, et al. Acute effects of zolpidem on daytime alertness, psychomotor and physical performance. Neurosci Res. 2007;59(3):309–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Ito W, Kanbayashi T, Shimizu K, Uemura SI, Wakasa M, Inoue Y, et al. Acute effects of zaleplon on daytime functions on the following day: psychomotor and physical performances, arousal levels and mood. Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche. 2017;176(5):257–64. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Suda H, Kanbayashi T, Ito SU, Sagawa Y, Imanishi A, Tsutsui K, et al. Residual effects of eszopiclone on daytime alertness, psychomotor, physical performance and subjective evaluations. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2017;15(4):311–6. [Google Scholar]
- 26. Takahashi J, Kanbayashi T, Ito Uemura S, Sagawa Y, Tsutsui K, Takahashi Y, et al. Residual effects of eszopiclone and placebo in healthy elderly subjects: a randomized double‐blind study. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2017;15(3):235–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Abad VC, Guilleminault C. Insomnia in elderly patients: recommendations for pharmacological management. Drugs Aging. 2018;35(9):791–817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Hoch CC, Yeager AL, Kupfer DJ. Quantification of subjective sleep quality in healthy elderly men and women using the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI). Sleep. 1991;14(4):331–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Doi Y, Minowa M, Uchiyama M, Okawa M, Kim K, Shibui K, et al. Psychometric assessment of subjective sleep quality using the Japanese version of the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI‐J) in psychiatric disordered and control subjects. Psychiatry Res. 2000;97(2–3):165–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Ishihara K, Miyashita A, Inugami M, Fukuda K, Yamazaki K, Miyata Y. The results of investigation by the Japanese version of Morningness‐Eveningness questionnaire. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 1986;57(2):87–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Flexer A, Gruber G, Dorffner G. A reliable probabilistic sleep stager based on a single EEG signal. Artif Intell Med. 2005;33(3):199–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Silber MH, Ancoli‐Israel S, Bonnet MH, Chokroverty S, Grigg‐Damberger MM, Hirshkowitz M, et al. The visual scoring of sleep in adults. J Clin Sleep Med. 2007;3(2):121–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Duncan PW, Weiner DK, Chandler J, Studenski S. Functional reach: a new clinical measure of balance. J Gerontol. 1990;45(6):M192–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed "up & go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Hindmarch I. Psychomotor function and psychoactive drugs. 1980. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58(7):S720‐40; discussion S41‐3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Hoddes E, Zarcone V, Smythe H, Phillips R, Dement WC. Quantification of sleepiness: a new approach. Psychophysiology. 1973;10(4):431–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Seol J, Fujii Y, Park I, Suzuki Y, Kawana F, Yajima K, et al. Distinct effects of orexin receptor antagonist and GABA(a) agonist on sleep and physical/cognitive functions after forced awakening. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(48):24353–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Struyk A, Gargano C, Drexel M, Stoch SA, Svetnik V, Ma J, et al. Pharmacodynamic effects of suvorexant and zolpidem on EEG during sleep in healthy subjects. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016;26(10):1649–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Brisbare‐Roch C, Dingemanse J, Koberstein R, Hoever P, Aissaoui H, Flores S, et al. Promotion of sleep by targeting the orexin system in rats, dogs and humans. Nat Med. 2007;13(2):150–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Sakurai T, Mieda M, Tsujino N. The orexin system: roles in sleep/wake regulation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1200:149–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Roehrs T, Roth T. Insomnia pharmacotherapy. Neurotherapeutics. 2012;9(4):728–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Abe S, Enomoto M, Kitamura S, Hida A, Tachimori H, Tsutsui T, et al. Prescription hypnotics and associated background factors in a large‐scale Japanese database. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2012;10(4):319–27. [Google Scholar]
- 43. Shimoda K, Hoshino T, Morisaki T, Shiotsu K, Sugiyama R. The reduction of in‐hospital adoption of benzodiazepine hypnotics for controlled use and survey on actual conditions after switching to alternative hypnotics. J Jpn Soc Hosp Pharm. 2020;56(7):759–66. [Google Scholar]
- 44. Neubauer DN. Pharmacotherapy for insomnia in adults. Available from: https://wwwuptodatecom/contents/pharmacotherapy‐for‐insomnia‐in‐adults Accessed, 1–28‐2022.
- 45. Roger M, Attali P, Coquelin JP. Multicenter, double‐blind, controlled comparison of zolpidem and triazolam in elderly patients with insomnia. Clin Ther. 1993;15(1):127–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Ancoli‐Israel S, Walsh JK, Mangano RM, Fujimori M. Zaleplon, a novel nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic, effectively treats insomnia in elderly patients without causing rebound effects. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;1(4):114–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Borja NL, Daniel KL. Ramelteon for the treatment of insomnia. Clin Ther. 2006;10:1540–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Roth T, Seiden D, Sainati S, Wang‐Weigand S, Zhang J, Zee P. Effects of ramelteon on patient‐reported sleep latency in older adults with chronic insomnia. Sleep Med. 2006;7(4):312–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Ishibashi Y, Nishitani R, Shimura A, Takeuchi A, Touko M, Kato T, et al. Non‐GABA sleep medications, suvorexant as risk factors for falls: case‐control and case‐crossover study. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0238723. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Ishigo T, Takada R, Kondo F, Ibe Y, Nakano K, Tateishi R, et al. Association Suvorexant and ramelteon use with the risk of falling: a retrospective case‐control study. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2020;140(8):1041–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Johnson MW, Suess PE, Griffiths RR. Ramelteon: a novel hypnotic lacking abuse liability and sedative adverse effects. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63(10):1149–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Kato K, Hirai K, Nishiyama K, Uchikawa O, Fukatsu K, Ohkawa S, et al. Neurochemical properties of ramelteon (TAK‐375), a selective MT1/MT2 receptor agonist. Neuropharmacology. 2005;48(2):301–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Ramirez AD, Gotter AL, Fox SV, Tannenbaum PL, Yao L, Tye SJ, et al. Dual orexin receptor antagonists show distinct effects on locomotor performance, ethanol interaction and sleep architecture relative to gamma‐aminobutyric acid‐a receptor modulators. Front Neurosci. 2013;7:254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Michelson D, Snyder E, Paradis E, Chengan‐Liu M, Snavely DB, Hutzelmann J, et al. Safety and efficacy of suvorexant during 1‐year treatment of insomnia with subsequent abrupt treatment discontinuation: a phase 3 randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(5):461–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Schroeck JL, Ford J, Conway EL, Kurtzhalts KE, Gee ME, Vollmer KA, et al. Review of safety and efficacy of sleep medicines in older adults. Clin Ther. 2016;38(11):2340–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Herring WJ, Connor KM, Ivgy‐May N, Snyder E, Liu K, Snavely DB, et al. Suvorexant in patients with insomnia: results from two 3‐month randomized controlled clinical trials. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;79(2):136–48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data S1
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions. The IRB did not grant the deposit of raw data in a publicly accessible data archive or repository at the time of approval since the procedure was not included in the study protocol or informed consent document.