Kripke Daniel F, Langer Robert D, Kline Lawrence E
Scripps Clinic Viterbi Family Sleep Center, La Jolla, California, USA.
BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 27;2(1):e000850. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000850. Print 2012.
An estimated 6%-10% of US adults took a hypnotic drug for poor sleep in 2010. This study extends previous reports associating hypnotics with excess mortality.
A large integrated health system in the USA.
Longitudinal electronic medical records were extracted for a one-to-two matched cohort survival analysis.
Subjects (mean age 54 years) were 10 529 patients who received hypnotic prescriptions and 23 676 matched controls with no hypnotic prescriptions, followed for an average of 2.5 years between January 2002 and January 2007.
Data were adjusted for age, gender, smoking, body mass index, ethnicity, marital status, alcohol use and prior cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) for death were computed from Cox proportional hazards models controlled for risk factors and using up to 116 strata, which exactly matched cases and controls by 12 classes of comorbidity.
As predicted, patients prescribed any hypnotic had substantially elevated hazards of dying compared to those prescribed no hypnotics. For groups prescribed 0.4-18, 18-132 and >132 doses/year, HRs (95% CIs) were 3.60 (2.92 to 4.44), 4.43 (3.67 to 5.36) and 5.32 (4.50 to 6.30), respectively, demonstrating a dose-response association. HRs were elevated in separate analyses for several common hypnotics, including zolpidem, temazepam, eszopiclone, zaleplon, other benzodiazepines, barbiturates and sedative antihistamines. Hypnotic use in the upper third was associated with a significant elevation of incident cancer; HR=1.35 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.55). Results were robust within groups suffering each comorbidity, indicating that the death and cancer hazards associated with hypnotic drugs were not attributable to pre-existing disease.
Receiving hypnotic prescriptions was associated with greater than threefold increased hazards of death even when prescribed <18 pills/year. This association held in separate analyses for several commonly used hypnotics and for newer shorter-acting drugs. Control of selective prescription of hypnotics for patients in poor health did not explain the observed excess mortality.
2010年,估计有6%-10%的美国成年人因睡眠不佳服用催眠药物。本研究扩展了之前关于催眠药与超额死亡率相关的报告。
美国一个大型综合医疗系统。
提取纵向电子病历进行一对一匹配队列生存分析。
研究对象(平均年龄54岁)为10529例接受催眠药处方的患者和23676例未接受催眠药处方的匹配对照,在2002年1月至2007年1月期间平均随访2.5年。
数据根据年龄、性别、吸烟、体重指数、种族、婚姻状况、饮酒情况和既往癌症史进行调整。死亡风险比(HR)通过Cox比例风险模型计算,该模型控制了风险因素,并使用多达116个分层,这些分层根据12类合并症将病例和对照精确匹配。
正如预期的那样,与未开具催眠药的患者相比,开具任何催眠药的患者死亡风险显著升高。对于每年开具0.4-18剂、18-132剂和>132剂的组,HR(95%CI)分别为3.60(2.92至4.44)、4.43(3.67至5.36)和5.32(4.50至6.30),显示出剂量反应关系。在对几种常见催眠药(包括唑吡坦、替马西泮、艾司佐匹克隆、扎来普隆、其他苯二氮䓬类药物、巴比妥类药物和镇静性抗组胺药)的单独分析中,HR升高。使用催眠药处于上三分位数与癌症发病率显著升高相关;HR=1.35(95%CI 1.18至1.55)。在每种合并症患者组中结果都很稳健,表明与催眠药相关的死亡和癌症风险并非归因于既往疾病。
即使每年开具的催眠药少于18片,接受催眠药处方也与死亡风险增加三倍以上相关。这种关联在对几种常用催眠药和新型短效药物的单独分析中均成立。对健康状况不佳患者选择性开具催眠药的控制并不能解释观察到的超额死亡率。