Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26594338›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2015

Is suvorexant a better choice than alternative hypnotics?

Daniel F Kripke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Hypnotics and infections: disproportionality analysis of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration adverse event reporting system database.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel F KripkeScripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Center, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Suvorexant is a novel dual orexin receptor antagonist (DORA) newly introduced in the U.S. as a hypnotic, but no claim of superiority over other hypnotics has been offered.  The manufacturer argued that the 5 and 10 mg starting doses recommended by the FDA might be ineffective.  The manufacturer's main Phase III trials had not even included the 10 mg dosage, and the 5 mg dosage had not been tested at all in registered clinical trials at the time of approval.  Popular alternative hypnotics may be similarly ineffective, since the FDA has also reduced the recommended doses for zolpidem and eszopiclone.  The "not to exceed" suvorexant dosage of 20 mg does slightly increase sleep.  Because of slow absorption, suvorexant has little effect on latency to sleep onset but some small effect in suppressing wakening after sleep onset and in improving sleep efficiency. The FDA would not approve the manufacturer's preferred 40 mg suvorexant dosage, because of concern with daytime somnolence, driving impairment, and possible narcolepsy-like symptoms.  In its immediate benefits-to-risks ratio, suvorexant is unlikely to prove superior to currently available hypnotics-possibly worse-so there is little reason to prefer over the alternatives this likely more expensive hypnotic less-tested in practice.  Associations are being increasingly documented relating hypnotic usage with incident cancer, with dementia risks, and with premature death.  There is some basis to speculate that suvorexant might be safer than alternative hypnotics in terms of cancer, dementia, infections, and mortality.  These safety considerations will remain unproven speculations unless adequate long-term trials can be done that demonstrate suvorexant advantages.

Indexed as

Belsomra®cancereszopiclonehypnoticmelatoninmortalitysleepsuvorexantzolpidem

Identifiers

PMID26594338
PMCPMC4648222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.