MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608460435 · doi:10.1093/sleepj/zsx050.340

0341 SEQUENTIAL THERAPIES FOR COMORBID AND PRIMARY INSOMNIA: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

2017· article· en· W2608460435 on OpenAlexaff
CM Morin, JD Edinger, A. Krystal, Simon Beaulieu‐Bonneau, Hans Ivers, Bernard Guay, A. Cartwright, A. Solano, Mindy Busby

Bibliographic record

VenueSLEEP · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZolpidemRandomized controlled trialInsomniaMedicineTrazodonePrimary InsomniaPharmacotherapyCognitive behavioral therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryPhysical therapySleep disorderAnxietyAntidepressant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite evidence supporting pharmacological and cognitive/behavioral insomnia therapies, it remains unclear how best to combined these therapies to optimize outcomes. This paper reports findings from a two-site randomized clinical trial examining the efficacy of these therapies, employed individually and in various sequences. Patients were 211 adults (132 women; M age = 45.6 ± 14.9 years old) with insomnia disorder, including 72 who also presented a comorbid psychiatric disorder. They were randomly assigned to first-stage 6-week therapy involving either behavioral therapy (BT) or zolpidem. Patients in remission continued on maintenance therapy for 12 months. Those not achieving remission were randomized to a second, 6-week treatment involving either pharmacotherapy (zolpidem or trazodone) or psychological therapy (BT or cognitive therapy-CT). The primary end points reported here include Insomnia Severity Index - defined treatment response (≥ 8 point decline) and remission (total score < 8). Intent-to-treat analyses showed that there were similar proportions of treatment responders (45% vs. 41%) after initial treatment with BT or zolpidem, but a larger proportion of remitters in BT (33% vs. 25%). For those who did not remit with BT, the addition of zolpidem or cognitive therapy as a second treatment yielded equivalent response rates (54% and 56%, respectively), but larger remission rates when there was a switch of treatment modality (BT to zolpidem; 35%) than when patients remained within the same treatment modality (BT to CT; 22%). For those who did not remit with zolpidem, the addition of BT or trazodone yielded identical response rates (44%) and remission rates (22%). Although response/remission rates were generally lower among patients with psychiatric comorbidity, treatment sequences that involved BT followed by CT or zolpidem followed by trazodone led to better outcomes for comorbid insomnia than for insomnia without comorbidity. These preliminary, descriptive, findings suggest that sequential therapy is an effective strategy to optimize insomnia management. Adding a second treatment produces an added value for those who fail to respond to initial therapies. Patients with comorbid insomnia may benefit from therapies (cognitive therapy, antidepressant) that target mood in addition to sleep. National Institutes of Health (MH091053).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSLEEPSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207