Sir Jules Thorn Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Lancet. 2023 Sep 16;402(10406):975-987. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00683-9. Epub 2023 Aug 10.
Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented.
We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563).
Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19-88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference -3·05, 95% CI -3·83 to -2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d -0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention.
Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder.
The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
失眠普遍存在且令人痛苦,但获得一线治疗方法认知行为疗法(CBT)的机会极其有限。我们旨在评估睡眠限制疗法的临床和成本效益,这是 CBT 的一个关键组成部分,具有广泛实施的潜力。
我们在英格兰的 35 家普通诊所进行了一项实用、优势、开放标签、随机对照试验,比较睡眠限制疗法与睡眠卫生。招募患有失眠症的成年人,他们使用基于网络的随机化程序,按照 1:1 的比例随机分配到由护士提供的四次睡眠限制疗法加睡眠卫生手册组或仅睡眠卫生手册组。两组均不受常规护理限制。在 3 个月、6 个月和 12 个月时评估结果。主要终点是使用失眠严重程度指数(ISI)在 6 个月时自我报告的失眠严重程度。主要分析包括按分配组和至少有一次结局测量值的参与者进行。从英国国家医疗服务体系和个人社会服务角度评估成本效益,并以每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本表示。该试验已预先注册(ISRCTN42499563)。
2018 年 8 月 29 日至 2020 年 3 月 23 日,我们随机分配了 642 名参与者到睡眠限制疗法组(n=321)或睡眠卫生组(n=321)。平均年龄为 55.4 岁(19-88 岁),489 名(76.2%)参与者为女性,153 名(23.8%)为男性。580 名(90.3%)参与者至少提供了一次结局测量值。在 6 个月时,睡眠限制疗法组的 ISI 评分平均为 10.9(5.5),睡眠卫生组为 13.9(5.2)(调整后的平均差异-3.05,95%CI-3.83 至-2.28;p<0.0001;Cohen's d-0.74),表明睡眠限制疗法组的参与者报告的失眠严重程度低于睡眠卫生组。每获得一个 QALY 的增量成本为 2076 英镑,在 20000 英镑的成本效益阈值下,治疗具有 95.3%的成本效益可能性。每组各有 8 名参与者发生严重不良事件,但均未被判断与干预有关。
初级保健中简短的护士提供的睡眠限制疗法可减轻失眠症状,可能具有成本效益,并具有广泛作为失眠症一线治疗方法实施的潜力。
英国国家卫生与保健研究所卫生技术评估计划。