Use of ultra-low-dose (≤6 mg) doxepin for treatment of insomnia in older people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insomnia is one of the most frequent complaints encountered in primary care practice, one that results in significant clinical consequences and cost burden to the public health system. It is more common in elderly adults (≥65 years of age), with frequent complaints regarding sleep maintenance and early morning wakening. Current treatment options have limitations. This review was conducted to evaluate the evidence behind ultra-low-dose doxepin in insomnia and to discuss its potential advantages, its place in therapy and its implications in practice in the treatment of older patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted of MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed and EMBASE using the MeSH and key terms "doxepin," "sleep initiation and maintenance disorders," "insomnia," and "low dose." Only randomized controlled trials comparing 3 mg and/or 6 mg of doxepin to placebo and involving participants diagnosed with primary insomnia were included. Primary outcomes for this review were objective sleep study parameters. RESULTS: Five studies were identified, 3 of which (n = 571) were conducted in older adults. Doxepin 3 mg and 6 mg significantly reduced waking after sleep onset and increased total sleep time. There was no significant difference between the 2 doses of doxepin. Latency to persistent sleep did not differ significantly compared with placebo for any doses of doxepin. The most frequent adverse events reported were somnolence and headache. Adverse events did not appear to be dose-related, and studies reported the incidence of adverse effects to be comparable to placebo. CONCLUSION: Doxepin 3 mg and 6 mg significantly improved and sustained sleep maintenance and sleep duration into the last third of the night but did not significantly affect sleep onset. Sleep benefits were achieved without next-day residual or discontinuation effects. Doxepin appears to be well suited for managing insomnia in older people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".