| Literature DB >> 31252661 |
Hyeon Jin Kim1,2, Jiyeon Kim3, Seungyeon Lee3, Bosil Kim1, Eunjin Kwon1,2, Jee Eun Lee1, Min Young Chun1,2, Chan Young Lee1,2, Audrey Boulier4, Seikwan Oh5, Hyang Woon Lee6,7.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of alpha-s1 casein hydrolysate (ACH; Lactium®) on the subjective and objective sleep profiles of a community-based sample of Koreans with poor sleep quality. We performed a double-blind, randomized crossover trial with 48 participants (49.0 ± 1.7 years old, 65% female) who exhibited a mild to moderate degree of sleep disturbance. Either ACH or placebo was administered for the initial four weeks, and the counterpart was administered in precisely the same manner after a four-week washout period. Sleep disturbance scales, daytime functioning, and psychiatric aspects showed a similar tendency to improve during both ACH and placebo phases without significant group differences. Overall perceived sleep profiles in sleep diaries were significantly improved during the ACH phase, represented by increased total sleep time and sleep efficiency (SE), as well as decreased sleep latency and wake after sleep onset (WASO). Interestingly, actigraphy demonstrated significantly increased SE after continuous use of ACH for four weeks, clearly more improved when compared to two weeks of use. The polysomnography measures showed a similar tendency without statistically significant group differences. Our findings suggest that refined ACH was well tolerated and could improve sleep quality, with possible cumulative beneficial effects with long-term administration.Entities:
Keywords: Lactium®; alpha-s1 casein hydrolysate; clinical trial; insomnia; nutritional supplements; sleep disturbance; sleep quality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31252661 PMCID: PMC6682925 DOI: 10.3390/nu11071466
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Study protocol. ACH, alpha-s1 casein hydrolysate.
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| Variables | N = 48 |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 49.0 ± 11.9 |
| Gender (male/female) | 17/31 |
| Menopause | 24/31 (77.4%) |
| Postmenopausal period (month) | 72.0 ± 57.2 |
| Sleep disturbance duration (month) | 57.6 ± 91.3 |
| Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index | 11.4 ± 1.9 |
| Insomnia Severity Index | 13.2 ± 3.8 |
| Family history of insomnia | 6 (12.5%) |
| Caffeine amount (servings/day) | 1.2 ± 1.3 |
| Alcohol drinker | 31 (64.6%) |
| Alcohol amount (g/week) | 29.9 ± 37.4 |
| Smoker | 2 (4.2%) |
| Smoking amount (cigarettes/day) | 0.3 ± 1.1 |
| Anthropometric measures | |
| Body weight (kg) | 60.3 ± 10.9 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 22.8 ± 2.8 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 80.0 ± 7.9 |
| Neck circumference (cm) | 33.9 ± 2.8 |
| Vital signs | |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 119.4 ± 12.8 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 74.5 ± 12.1 |
| Pulse rate (beats/min) | 71.2 ± 12.3 |
| Body temperature (°C) | 36.4 ± 0.3 |
Data are mean ± SD (standard deviation) or number of answers (%).
Differences in sleep disturbance symptoms, daytime functioning, and psychiatric aspects between control (placebo) and test (alpha-s1 casein hydrolysate (ACH)) phases.
| Variables | Placebo | ACH | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Time | Group × Time | |||||||
| Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index | |||||||||
| Week 0 | 10.14 | ± | 0.42 | 9.79 | ± | 0.42 | |||
| Week 2 | 8.23 | ± | 0.42 | 8.79 | ± | 0.43 | |||
| Week 4 | 8.41 | ± | 0.42 | 8.51 | ± | 0.43 | 0.668 | <0.001 ** | 0.211 |
| Insomnia Severity Index | |||||||||
| Week 0 | 12.15 | ± | 0.73 | 12.08 | ± | 0.73 | |||
| Week 2 | 9.75 | ± | 0.73 | 10.50 | ± | 0.74 | |||
| Week 4 | 9.44 | ± | 0.73 | 10.04 | ± | 0.74 | 0.406 | <0.001 ** | 0.523 |
| Epworth Sleepiness Scale | |||||||||
| Week 0 | 6.30 | ± | 0.58 | 6.72 | ± | 0.58 | |||
| Week 2 | 6.10 | ± | 0.58 | 5.91 | ± | 0.59 | |||
| Week 4 | 6.02 | ± | 0.58 | 5.67 | ± | 0.59 | 0.920 | 0.039 | 0.324 |
| Fatigue Severity Scale | |||||||||
| Week 0 | 31.60 | ± | 1.64 | 32.55 | ± | 1.65 | |||
| Week 2 | 31.00 | ± | 1.65 | 32.64 | ± | 1.67 | |||
| Week 4 | 30.67 | ± | 1.65 | 31.29 | ± | 1.67 | 0.276 | 0.462 | 0.854 |
| Beck Depression Inventory | |||||||||
| Week 0 | 11.65 | ± | 1.25 | 12.37 | ± | 1.26 | |||
| Week 2 | 11.49 | ± | 1.26 | 12.28 | ± | 1.27 | |||
| Week 4 | 10.41 | ± | 1.26 | 10.79 | ± | 1.27 | 0.464 | 0.008 * | 0.912 |
| Beck Anxiety Inventory | |||||||||
| Week 0 | 8.04 | ± | 1.11 | 7.71 | ± | 1.11 | |||
| Week 2 | 8.41 | ± | 1.11 | 7.72 | ± | 1.12 | |||
| Week 4 | 7.70 | ± | 1.11 | 7.09 | ± | 1.12 | 0.363 | 0.362 | 0.924 |
Data are least square (LS) mean ± standard error of mean (SEM). p-value, linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze the effects of group, time, and group × time for four weeks. * q-value < 0.05 and ** q-value < 0.01, Storey’s positive false discovery rate (pFDR) was calculated to account for multiple testing.
Comparison of sleep parameters between control (placebo) and test (ACH) groups.
| Variables | Placebo | ACH | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 0 | Week 4 | Week 0 | Week 4 | Group | Time | Group × Time | |
| TIB (min) | |||||||
| Sleep diary | 470.4 ± 12.1 | 455.9 ± 12.4 | 464.5 ± 12.2 | 459.5 ± 12.2 | 0.883 | 0.134 | 0.465 |
| Actigraphy | 432.6 ± 17.0 | 412.0 ± 17.1 | 431.5 ± 17.1 | 424.0 ± 17.5 | 0.737 | 0.342 | 0.656 |
| TST (min) | |||||||
| Sleep diary | 395.7 ± 10.0 | 361.0 ± 10.3 | 385.3 ± 10.1 | 422.7 ± 10.1 | <0.001 ** | 0.796 | <0.001 ** |
| Actigraphy | 362.8 ± 16.5 | 347.8 ± 16.6 | 360.1 ± 16.6 | 376.1 ± 17.0 | 0.414 | 0.971 | 0.270 |
| SL (min) | |||||||
| Sleep diary | 33.2 ± 4.4 | 50.5 ± 4.6 | 39.5 ± 4.5 | 18.3 ± 4.5 | 0.011 * | 0.598 | <0.001 ** |
| Actigraphy | 4.4 ± 1.5 | 5.5 ± 1.5 | 7.0 ± 1.5 | 2.8 ± 1.6 | 0.975 | 0.288 | 0.063 |
| SE (%) | |||||||
| Sleep diary | 84.9 ± 1.3 | 79.4 ± 1.3 | 83.3 ± 1.3 | 92.1 ± 1.3 | <0.001 ** | 0.108 | <0.001 ** |
| Actigraphy | 83.3 ± 0.9 | 84.3 ± 1.0 | 83.6 ± 0.9 | 88.0 ± 1.0 | 0.013 * | <0.001 ** | 0.007 * |
| WASO (min) | |||||||
| Sleep diary | 15.7 ± 3.4 | 29.6 ± 3.6 | 17.0 ± 3.5 | 11.9 ± 3.5 | 0.039 | 0.097 | <0.001 ** |
| Actigraphy | 53.2 ± 3.8 | 49.2 ± 3.9 | 55.6 ± 3.9 | 38.9 ± 3.9 | 0.228 | 0.002 * | 0.053 |
| Awake (N) | |||||||
| Sleep diary | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.001 ** | 0.216 | 0.077 |
| Actigraphy | 16.1 ± 1.1 | 15.2 ± 1.1 | 15.6 ± 1.1 | 12.6 ± 1.2 | 0.157 | 0.024 | 0.240 |
Data are LS mean ± SEM. p-value, linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze the effects of group, time, and group × time for four weeks. * q-value < 0.05 and ** q-value < 0.01, pFDR was calculated as to account for multiple testing. TIB, time in bed; TST, total sleep time; SL, sleep latency; SE, sleep efficiency; WASO, wake after sleep onset.
Ratio of participants with improved sleep parameters in control (placebo) and test (ACH) phases.
| Variables | Sleep Diary | Actigraphy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | ACH | Placebo | ACH | |||
| Increased TST | 24% | 79% | <0.001 ** | 41% | 61% | 0.073 |
| Decreased SL | 30% | 67% | 0.001 ** | 29% | 46% | 0.119 |
| Increased SE | 24% | 85% | <0.001 ** | 63% | 85% | 0.031 |
| Decreased WASO | 32% | 51% | 0.096 | 61% | 67% | 0.597 |
| Decreased Awakes | 43% | 54% | 0.355 | 56% | 64% | 0.465 |
Data are answered numbers (%). p-value, chi-square test was used to analyze group difference. * q-value < 0.05 and ** q-value < 0.01, pFDR was calculated to account for multiple testing.
Figure 2Comparison of effects of ACH administration duration on sleep efficiency. (a) Sleep diary showed constant improvement in sleep efficiency for ACH phase group compared with gradual deterioration for placebo group. Group difference in sleep efficiency over time became significant when ACH was administered for four weeks (p < 0.001, q < 0.001 for 0–4 weeks), which did not reach statistical significance after two weeks of use (p = 0.067 for 0–2 weeks). (b) Actigraphy revealed that sleep efficiency did not show clear differences between ACH and placebo phases; however, the significant improvement effect was only obvious after continuous use of ACH for four weeks (p = 0.066 for 0–2 weeks vs. p = 0.007, q = 0.016 for 0–4 weeks). * q-value < 0.05 and ** q-value < 0.01, pFDR was calculated for group × time difference by linear mixed-effects model to account for multiple testing.