SynthesisPsychopharmacology2025
Comparison of efficacy and safety of dual orexin receptor antagonists lemborexant and daridorexant for the treatment of insomnia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Psychopharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacological modulation of hyperarousal in insomnia associated with major depressive disorder: a narrative review of sedating antidepressants and orexin receptor antagonists.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Ghrelin's role in sleep and sleep deprivation: a narrative review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of lemborexant (LEM) and daridorexant (DAR) for the treatment of insomnia, including the difference in efficacy and safety.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of LEM and DAR in patients with insomnia in five databases from database inception to Mar 16, 2024. We evaluate the quality of studies. Besides, we perform the meta-analysis and detect publication bias.
resultsA total of 8 RCTs with 5077 patients were included in this study, including 2239 in the LEM treatment group, 1397 in the DAR treatment group, and 1441 in the placebo (PBO) control group. Both LEM and DAR significantly improved sleep outcomes compared to placebo. LEM was more effective in reducing the time of wake after sleep onset (WASO) (MD, -45.15; 95% CI: -51.75 to -38.56; P < 0.001) and improving subjective sleep onset latency (sSOL) (MD, -25.01; 95% CI: -28.58 to -21.44; P < 0.001) than DAR (WASO: MD: -12.6; 95% CI: -18.71 to -6.5; P < 0.001; sSOL: MD, -2.33; 95% CI: -7.1 to 2.45; P = 0.24). In terms of dosing, DAR at 50 mg demonstrated superior efficacy compared to the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg doses, indicating a dose-dependent effect. The efficacy of LEM was consistent across the 5 mg and 10 mg doses. Safety profiles revealed that DAR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.29; P = 0.01) treatment was associated with higher rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) compared to placebo, particularly at the 25 mg dose (RR, 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.31; P = 0.03), while LEM (RR, 1.21; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.50; P = 0.08) showed no significant difference in TEAEs rates compared to placebo. However, LEM (RR, 5.62; 95% CI: 2.92 to 10.83; P < 0.001) was associated with a higher risk of somnolence compared to DAR (RR, 1.55; 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.81; P = 0.15). The overall quality of the included studies was moderate to high based on the risk of bias assessment.
conclusionBoth LEM and DAR are effective and generally safe options for the treatment of insomnia, with LEM showing greater efficacy in improving WASO and sSOL. The choice between LEM and DAR should consider individual patient needs, including the risk of daytime drowsiness and other adverse events. Further direct comparative trials are needed to confirm these findings and inform clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40133470What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.