Observational studyJAMA network open2024
Treatment Failure and Long-Term Prescription Risk for Guideline-Recommended Hypnotics in Japan.
Observational study in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the research landscape of traditional Chinese medicine in insomnia management: a bibliometric study (2005-2024).Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Self-Reported Adverse Events in Psychiatric Outpatients Taking Hypnotics: Higher Real-World Frequencies Than Those Listed in Package Inserts.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2026Article
- Association of probiotic medication use with incident Parkinson disease and alzheimer disease: a nationwide nested case-control study.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Association between polypharmacy and the long-term prescription of hypnotics in Japan: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Although insomnia guidelines recommend the use of several individual hypnotics, the most useful hypnotic for treating insomnia in a clinical setting remains unclear. Objective: To determine which guideline-recommended hypnotics have lower risks of monotherapy failure and which hypnotics have a higher risk of long-term prescription for insomnia treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from the Japan Medical Data Center Claims Database from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2021. Participants included adults whose first prescribed pharmaceutical treatment for insomnia was guideline-recommended hypnotic monotherapy. Data were analyzed from December 24, 2022, to September 26, 2023. Exposures: Suvorexant, ramelteon, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and triazolam monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was monotherapy failure, defined as a change in hypnotic or having an additional hypnotic prescribed for insomnia within 6 months of the first prescription of a guideline-recommended hypnotic monotherapy. The secondary outcome was monotherapy discontinuation, defined as no prescription of any hypnotic for 2 consecutive months within 6 months after prescribing a guideline-recommended hypnotic in patients for whom monotherapy did not fail. Monotherapy failure and discontinuation were compared using Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression models, respectively. Results: The study included 239 568 adults (median age, 45 [IQR, 34-55] years; 50.2% women) whose first prescription for insomnia was guideline-recommended hypnotic monotherapy. During the 6-month follow-up period, 24 778 patients (10.3%) experienced failure of monotherapy with a guideline-recommended hypnotic. In comparison with eszopiclone, there were more cases of monotherapy failure for ramelteon (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.23 [95% CI], 1.17-1.30; P < .001), fewer cases for zolpidem (AHR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.81-0.87]; P < .001) and triazolam (AHR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.78-0.87]; P < .001), and no significant difference between suvorexant and eszopiclone. Among those without monotherapy failure, monotherapy was discontinued in 84.6% of patients, with more discontinuations for ramelteon (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.24-1.40]; P < .001) and suvorexant (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.15-1.26]; P < .001) than for eszopiclone and no significant difference between zolpidem or triazolam and eszopiclone. Conclusions and Relevance: Due to uncontrolled confounding factors in this cohort study, no conclusions regarding the pharmacologic properties of guideline-recommended hypnotics can be drawn based on these results. Further studies accounting for confounding factors, including diagnoses of chronic vs acute insomnia disorder, insomnia and psychiatric symptom severity, and physician attitudes toward hypnotic prescription, are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.