MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408884270 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf050

Mirtazapine for chronic insomnia in older adults: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial—the MIRAGE study

2025· article· en· W4408884270 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Viet-Quoc Nguyen, Thien Thanh Dang‐Vu, Geneviève Forest, Sophie Desjardins, Marie‐France Forget, Thien Vu, Quôc Dinh Nguyên, Édouard Kouassi, Philippe Desmarais

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisConcordia UniversityInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMirtazapineMedicinePlaceboInsomniaDiscontinuationAdverse effectPrimary InsomniaClinical endpointClinical trialInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialSleep disorderAntidepressantPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mirtazapine promotes sleep by blocking serotonin and histaminergic receptors and is often used off-label to treat chronic insomnia. However, its efficacy remains to be demonstrated in a clinical trial. The MIRAGE study aims to determine the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine in older patients with chronic insomnia. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in a geriatric outpatient clinic of a teaching hospital. Adults aged 65 years and older with chronic insomnia were included. Sixty participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive mirtazapine 7.5 mg or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score from baseline to 28 days post-treatment. The primary safety endpoints included any adverse events reported during the clinical trial and all adverse events leading to premature discontinuation. RESULTS: Mirtazapine was superior to placebo on the primary outcome measure, subjective wake after sleep onset, total sleep time and sleep efficiency. After 28 days, the mean change in ISI score was significantly greater in the mirtazapine group (-6.5 [95%CI; -8.3 to -4.8]) compared to the placebo group (-2.9 [95%CI; -4.4 to -1.4]), with a p-value of 0.003. No participant experienced severe adverse events. A total of 6 participants in the mirtazapine group and 1 participant in the placebo group discontinued their treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Mirtazapine reduces chronic insomnia symptoms in older people. However, its use may be limited by mild but clinically relevant adverse events. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT05247697). IMPACT STATEMENT: This is the first randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the efficacy and safety of Mirtazapine in older adults with chronic insomnia. Our findings show that a 28-day treatment with mirtazapine, compared to placebo, significantly reduces insomnia severity, as measured by the Insomnia Severity Index. Despite the current lack of robust evidence, mirtazapine is widely prescribed by clinicians to treat insomnia in older adults with chronic insomnia. Publishing our study will facilitate the broad dissemination of this critical information, helping clinicians more effectively treat their older patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207