Evidence Hub

Comparative effects of hypnotic agents on sleep architecture and respiratory outcomes in obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Kishi T, Ikuta T, Sakuma K, Hatano M, Kishi T, Kitajima T, Iwata N

Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2026

1,871 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Aim: This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to investigate which hypnotics are associated with the most favorable sleep architecture and respiratory outcomes in adults with obstructive sleep apnea.

Methods: Primary outcomes included total sleep time (TST) and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) during TST. Other outcomes were rapid eye movement (REM) sleep time, latency to persistent sleep (LPS), wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency (SE), AHI during non-REM or REM sleep, mean peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) during TST, mean SpO2 nadir during TST, arousal index (AI), all-cause discontinuation, adverse event-related discontinuation, and incidence of individual adverse events. Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Results: This systematic review included 32 RCTs (n = 1871, average age = 51.60 years, 62.52% male, mean AHI = 23.60). Our network meta-analysis evaluated brotizolam, daridorexant, eszopiclone, flurazepam, lemborexant, nitrazepam, ramelteon, temazepam, triazolam, zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone, and placebo. Compared with placebo, lemborexant increased TST, REM sleep time, and SE and decreased LPS and WASO, whereas both daridorexant and zolpidem increased TST and SE and decreased WASO. These three medications demonstrated respiratory safety and discontinuation profiles similar to those of placebo. Eszopiclone increased TST and SE and decreased LPS, WASO, AHI during TST, and AI, but its effects on LPS, WASO,…

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: 1,871 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