Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Acceptability of Licensed and Off-Label Pharmacological Interventions for Insomnia in Patients With Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials

Fuglsang NFB, Madsen NM, Jacobsen SL, Frøkjær JE, Ladegaard N, Sørensen MA, Correll CU, Otte C et al.

Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2025

2,476 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background: A wide range of drugs is used to alleviate insomnia symptoms in individuals with severe mental illness (SMI), including licensed drugs and sedating drugs prescribed off-label. Yet, no review has gathered the evidence on illness-specific or transdiagnostic outcomes of pharmacological interventions for insomnia. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying the efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for insomnia among individuals with SMI, defined as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD) or major depressive disorder (MDD).

Methods: We searched for RCTs of pharmacological interventions for insomnia that used either placebo or another medication as inactive control or active comparator. Two independent reviewers performed the literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment (RoB2). We performed random effects meta-analyses on the co-primary outcomes total sleep time (TST), sleep quality and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) and the secondary outcomes safety and tolerability.

Results: The search identified 3331 hits, of which 25 RCTs (n = 2476 individuals) were included, with 18 RCTs (n = 2199) in MDD, 4 RCTs (n = 162) in BD and 3 RCTs (n = 115) in schizophrenia. Of 25 RCTs, 22 had a high risk of bias. The most frequently studied drugs were agomelatine (RCTs = 3, n = 686), eszopiclone (RCTs = 3, n = 599) and zolpidem (RCTs = 3, n = 601). Compared to placebo,…

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: 2,476 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