Small moleculeSleep & insomnia
- Primary research area
- Sleep · insomnia
- Regulatory status
- See formulation-specific sources
- Evidence level
- Human randomized trials
- Primary mechanism
- Dual orexin receptor antagonist
Reference profile available · Coverage varies by sectionAlso known as Belsomra · MK-4305
What has been observed?
Selected source-linked reading notes, not the complete literature or a pooled conclusion.
Human · Abstract reviewedSuvorexant: what did the insomnia trial show?
Two trials randomized 1,021 and 1,019 adults. Nightly suvorexant doses were 20 or 40 mg for ages 18–64 and 15 or 30 mg for ages 65 and older, versus placebo for three months.
The 20/15 mg groups improved reported total sleep time and laboratory overnight wakefulness at all assessed time points. Sleep-onset measures improved at most, but not all, time points. Fewer than 5% discontinued because of adverse events.
Limits & adverse findings: This is a selected trial summary, not a full literature review or formal quality appraisal. The trials primarily focused on the higher 40/30 mg groups, with fewer participants assigned to 20/15 mg. These historical study doses are not a prescribing recommendation or a direct comparison with Dayvigo.
Open primary source · Read interpretation separatelyExplore outcomes for this compound- Uses & research
Two trials randomized 1,021 and 1,019 adults. Nightly suvorexant doses were 20 or 40 mg for ages 18–64 and 15 or 30 mg for ages 65 and older, versus placebo for three months. [1]
- Known half-life
No source-verified value in this profile yet. A treatment schedule or duration of an effect is not a drug half-life.
Half-life describes how quickly the measured drug concentration falls by half. It does not set a dosing interval.- Evidence & important limits
The trials primarily focused on the higher 40/30 mg groups, with fewer participants assigned to 20/15 mg. These historical study doses are not a prescribing recommendation or a direct comparison with Dayvigo. [1]
Safety & evidence boundaries
Source-specific information, not a personal safety clearance or monitoring plan.
The trials primarily focused on the higher 40/30 mg groups, with fewer participants assigned to 20/15 mg. These historical study doses are not a prescribing recommendation or a direct comparison with Dayvigo.
Human study: The trials primarily focused on the higher 40/30 mg groups, with fewer participants assigned to 20/15 mg. These historical study doses are not a prescribing recommendation or a direct comparison with Dayvigo. Source
Explore safety questions by system
These are literature filters, not claims that this compound causes each effect. A keyword match is not a confirmed adverse reaction.
Interactions, rare harms, long-term effects and reversibility require separate evidence. Do not infer they are absent when the sources here do not address them.
Identity, names & formulations
Canonical compound: Suvorexant · suvorexant
Searchable names: Belsomra, MK-4305
Names share a parent research page. Different esters, salts, routes and brands are not assumed to have the same half-life, indication or exposure.
Combination evidence stays attached to the studied combination. It is not automatically assigned to each ingredient.
Understand the evidence types
Read the model and design first, then the population, outcome and limitations. These categories describe evidence, not a best-compound ranking.
- Randomized human trials
- Compare assigned interventions. Randomization does not by itself establish low bias or relevance to every population.
- Controlled human studies
- Use a comparison group; allocation and confounding still matter.
- Prospective human research
- Follows participants forward. It may be observational or interventional, so this is not a separate quality grade.
- Observational human research
- Describes associations. Confounding can explain differences.
- Case reports and series
- Useful for unusual events and safety signals, not reliable rates or effect sizes.
- Animal research
- Can test biology and function in a living model. Human exposure, benefit and safety remain separate questions.
- Cell and tissue research
- Tests responses in a preparation, including human-derived cells. It is not a human participant trial.
- Mechanistic and computational evidence
- Helps explain or predict a pathway; predictions need experimental and clinical testing.
- Anecdotal reports
- Self-reported experiences can generate questions. Product identity, selection bias and other interventions may be uncontrolled.
Systematic reviews synthesize studies and depend on their quality. Preprint status and abstract versus full-paper reading are separate labels. Citation popularity measures attention, not reliability. A study summary is not a formal quality appraisal.