Evidence Hub

Clinical safety and narcolepsy-like symptoms of dual orexin receptor antagonists in patients with insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Na HJ, Jeon N, Staatz CE, Han N, Baek IH

Sleep, 2024

7,703 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Dual orexin receptor antagonists (DORAs) are emerging treatments for insomnia. This meta-analysis study aimed to assess the safety of FDA-approved DORAs (suvorexant, lemborexant, and daridorexant), focusing on narcolepsy-like symptoms associated with these drugs.

METHODS: Five prominent databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. Primary safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), treatment-related TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and serious TEAEs. Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS), sleep paralysis, and hallucinations were categorized as adverse events (AEs)-related narcolepsy-like symptoms.

RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with 7703 patients were included. DORAs were associated with a higher risk of TEAEs (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.15) and treatment-related TEAEs (RR, 1.69; 95% CI: 1.49 to 1.92) when compared to placebo. The DORA group exhibited a significantly higher risk of EDS (RR, 2.15; 95% CI: 1.02 to 4.52) and sleep paralysis (RR, 3.40; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.80) compared to the placebo group.

CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis achieved a comparative evaluation of the clinical safety and tolerability of FDA-approved DORAs for primary insomnia, specifically focusing on AEs-related narcolepsy-like symptoms. This study contributes to understanding the safety profile of FDA-approved DORAs for treating insomnia.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,703 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free