PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16633547

Sleep disorders in psychiatric practice.

Abstract

Over the last years, a large body of evidence has accumulated showing that complaints of disordered sleep are quite prevalent in the community. Insomnia is by far the most common disturbance and is often associated with concurrent psychiatric illness, in particular anxiety and mood disorders. On the other hand, sleep complaints are frequently present among psychiatric patients and have been incorporated in the official diagnostic criteria for many mental disorders, such as major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and substance-related disorders. Estimates of the prevalence of sleep disorders diverge widely, because these disorders have been variously conceptualized. Currently, however, three different classifications for sleep disorders establish reliable diagnostic criteria and allow for more consistency in clinical research. In particular, the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for insomnia helped to establish a consensus among sleep specialists by defining accurately this clinical condition, i.e. by conceptualizing it as the subjective complaint of insufficient or non-restorative sleep, which is the important feature, not the actual amount of time spent asleep. Alongside the evolution of taxonomic systems, the development of specific diagnostic tools, such as rating scales for measuring clinical manifestations of sleep disorders, has contributed significantly to the growth in the field. For instance, the risk factors responsible for the development of chronic insomnia, its consequences, and the complex relationship between insomnia and psychopathology, have been considerably clarified. In terms of the polysomnographic aberrations observed in various mental disorders, these, although proven not to be pathognomonic for any of them, have been considerably refined over the last decade, and certain general sleep patterns for some specific disorders have emerged. Finally, substantial advances have been made in the elucidation of the neuropsychobiological substrate of disturbed sleep. Thus, hyperarousal has been identified as the cardinal feature of chronic insomnia, which is associated with an around-the-clock activation of both major components of the stress system, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the sympathetic nervous system.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Waldemar Szelenberger, Constantin Soldatos. 2005. Sleep disorders in psychiatric practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16633547/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗