Effectiveness of low-dose amitriptyline and mirtazapine in patients with insomnia disorder with sleep maintenance problems: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in general practice (DREAMING).

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mette Bakker, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg, Pierre M Bet, Jos W R Twisk, Henriëtte van der Horst, Pauline Slottje
{"title":"Effectiveness of low-dose amitriptyline and mirtazapine in patients with insomnia disorder with sleep maintenance problems: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in general practice (DREAMING).","authors":"Mette Bakker, Jacqueline G Hugtenburg, Pierre M Bet, Jos W R Twisk, Henriëtte van der Horst, Pauline Slottje","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low-dose amitriptyline and mirtazapine are widely prescribed off-label for insomnia disorder. However, evidence from placebo-controlled studies is lacking.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of low-dose mirtazapine and amitriptyline in patients with insomnia disorder.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in general practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients (18-85 years) with insomnia disorder with sleep maintenance problems for whom non-pharmacological treatment was insufficient were randomised to either mirtazapine (7.5-15 mg/day) or amitriptyline (10-20 mg/day) or placebo for 16 weeks (optional double dose regime in week 3-14).</p><p><strong>Primary outcome: </strong>Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) total score at week 6 (range 0-28, assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 20 and 52 weeks), clinically relevant 'improvement' (>7 points lower than baseline) and 'recovery' (total score ≤10).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>80 participants were included. At 6 weeks, in the intention-to-treat analyses, mirtazapine and amitriptyline led to statistically significantly lower ISI scores compared to placebo (mean difference -6.0 points, 95% confidence interval -9.0 to -3.1; and -3.4 points, -6.3 to -0.4, respectively). From 12 weeks onwards no statistically significant differences in ISI scores were observed. Mirtazapine, but not amitriptyline, resulted in statistically significantly higher improvement and recovery rates compared to placebo at week 6 (52 and 40 compared to 14%, 56 and 36 compared to 14% respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to placebo low-dose mirtazapine provided a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction of insomnia severity at 6 weeks, but not at later time points. Low-dose amitriptyline resulted in a statistically significant reduction at 6 weeks only which was not clinically relevant.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0173","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Low-dose amitriptyline and mirtazapine are widely prescribed off-label for insomnia disorder. However, evidence from placebo-controlled studies is lacking.

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of low-dose mirtazapine and amitriptyline in patients with insomnia disorder.

Design and setting: Pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in general practice.

Methods: Patients (18-85 years) with insomnia disorder with sleep maintenance problems for whom non-pharmacological treatment was insufficient were randomised to either mirtazapine (7.5-15 mg/day) or amitriptyline (10-20 mg/day) or placebo for 16 weeks (optional double dose regime in week 3-14).

Primary outcome: Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) total score at week 6 (range 0-28, assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 20 and 52 weeks), clinically relevant 'improvement' (>7 points lower than baseline) and 'recovery' (total score ≤10).

Results: 80 participants were included. At 6 weeks, in the intention-to-treat analyses, mirtazapine and amitriptyline led to statistically significantly lower ISI scores compared to placebo (mean difference -6.0 points, 95% confidence interval -9.0 to -3.1; and -3.4 points, -6.3 to -0.4, respectively). From 12 weeks onwards no statistically significant differences in ISI scores were observed. Mirtazapine, but not amitriptyline, resulted in statistically significantly higher improvement and recovery rates compared to placebo at week 6 (52 and 40 compared to 14%, 56 and 36 compared to 14% respectively).

Conclusion: Compared to placebo low-dose mirtazapine provided a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction of insomnia severity at 6 weeks, but not at later time points. Low-dose amitriptyline resulted in a statistically significant reduction at 6 weeks only which was not clinically relevant.

低剂量阿米替林和米氮平治疗伴有睡眠维持问题的失眠症患者的有效性:一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照的临床试验(DREAMING)。
背景:小剂量阿米替林和米氮平被广泛用于治疗失眠症。然而,缺乏来自安慰剂对照研究的证据。目的:评价小剂量米氮平与阿米替林治疗失眠症的疗效。设计和设置:实用、双盲、随机、安慰剂对照的一般实践试验。方法:伴有睡眠维持问题且非药物治疗不足的失眠症患者(18-85岁)随机分为米氮平(7.5- 15mg /天)或阿米替林(10- 20mg /天)或安慰剂治疗16周(可在第3-14周选择双剂量方案)。主要结局:第6周失眠严重指数(ISI)总分(范围0-28,基线、6、12、20和52周评估),临床相关的“改善”(比基线低7分)和“恢复”(总分≤10分)。结果:共纳入80例受试者。6周时,在意向治疗分析中,米氮平和阿米替林与安慰剂相比,ISI评分在统计学上显著降低(平均差值-6.0分,95%置信区间-9.0至-3.1;-3.4点,-6.3点到-0.4点)。从12周开始,ISI评分没有统计学上的显著差异。在第6周,米氮平而非阿米替林的改善和恢复率在统计学上显著高于安慰剂(分别为52和40比14%,56和36比14%)。结论:与安慰剂相比,低剂量米氮平在6周时提供了具有统计学意义和临床相关的失眠严重程度降低,但在以后的时间点则没有。低剂量阿米替林仅在6周时导致统计学上显著的降低,这与临床无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信