Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40208562›Full record

SynthesisCNS drugs2025

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Wake-Promoting Agents for the Treatment of Residual Sleepiness in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Despite Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Pongsakorn Tanayapong, Visasiri Tantrakul, Somprasong Liamsombut, Sukanya Siriyotha, Gareth McKay, John Attia, Ammarin Thakkinstian

Abstract readComparative StudyNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CNS drugs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Pongsakorn TanayapongDivision of Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 270 Rama VI Road, Rachathevi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-6373-6344
Visasiri TantrakulDivision of Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 270 Rama VI Road, Rachathevi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. vtantrakul@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7444-8674
Somprasong LiamsombutDivision of Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 270 Rama VI Road, Rachathevi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-1648-4444
Sukanya SiriyothaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-7905-8392
Gareth McKayCentre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8197-6280
John AttiaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9800-1308
Ammarin ThakkinstianDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9991-386X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesResidual sleepiness can occur in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) despite adequate treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Various wake-promoting agents (WPAs) have been shown to reduce residual sleepiness in CPAP-treated patients with OSA. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of WPAs in this setting.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 9 January 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining WPAs for treating sleepiness in patients with OSA. Included were all RCTs that explored the efficacy and/or safety of any approved WPAs (i.e., modafinil, armodafinil, solriamfetol, or pitolisant) in patients with OSA (aged

resultsIn total, 14 RCTs studying four WPAs (total N = 2969) including modafinil (six RCTs; 200-400 mg/day), armodafinil (four RCTs; 150-250mg/day), solriamfetol (two RCTs; 37.5-300 mg/day), and pitolisant (two RCTs; 5-40 mg/day) were included. Solriamfetol, modafinil, and armodafinil were efficacious in reducing subjective sleepiness as measured by ESS [mean difference (95% confidence interval) at

conclusionsAmong all WPAs, solriamfetol demonstrated the highest efficacy on ESS and MWT, with the latter being significant. Modafinil demonstrated the best clinician impression, albeit not statistically significant. All four WPAs were associated with a low risk of serious or adverse events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number, CRD42022359237.

Indexed as

Disorders of Excessive SomnolenceSleep Apnea, ObstructiveWakefulness-Promoting AgentsContinuous Positive Airway PressureHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSleepinessTreatment OutcomeWakefulness-Promoting Agents

Identifiers

PMID40208562
PMCPMC12058958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.