The objective of the study was to analyze associations among quality of sleep, profile of the studies, and lifestyle factors among the students of three different study profiles (medicine, economics, and law). Material and methods. A total of 405 randomly selected students from the first and fourth years of studies from 4 different universities in Lithuania answered the standardized questionnaires consisting of two parts: 1) the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) for subjective evaluation of sleep quality; 2) the questionnaire about sleep and lifestyle habits and impact of poor sleep on the quality of life developed by the researchers. Results. More than half (59.4%) of the students scored higher than 5 on the PSQI, which allowed suspecting sleep disorders. A significant difference in the frequency of poor sleepers was found regarding the profile of studies (P<0.05) showing the highest frequency of sleep disturbances among medical students. There was a significant correlation between quality of sleep and subjective evaluation of quality of life (P<0.01). Medical students experienced the highest impact of poor sleep on the quality of life (P=0.008). Students studying before going to sleep, spending more time studying, and having less leisure time had worse quality of sleep (P<0.01). A significant difference was found among three profiles of studies regarding the anxiety about studies (P<0.0005) and subjective estimation of success in studies (χ²=27.9, P<0.0005), showing the highest anxiety and worst satisfaction among students of medicine. Conclusions. The incidence of sleep problems is high among students in Lithuania, reaching 59.4%. Medical students have worse quality of sleep and worse impact of poor sleep on the quality of life compared to students of law and economics. A significant difference was found between medical students and their peers in other profiles of studies regarding their attitudes and habits related to studies: medical students spent more time for studying, were more anxious about studies and less satisfied with the results, studied more often before going to sleep.

Insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders are increasingly common in modern society and lead to significant challenges for people’s health and well-being. Some studies suggests that men and women differ in neurohormonal secretion, biological processes, and brain morphology. Thus, such differences may affect the etiology, manifestation, and course of sleep disorders, including insomnia and circadian rhythm. This systematic review aims to synthesize the existing literature on sex differences in insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders. PubMed, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published from inception until 5 September 2023, not older than five years. We performed a systematic search using MESH and non-MESH queries: (sex differences) or (male and female differences) or (men and women differences) or (men and women) AND (insomnia) or (sleep wake disorder*) or (sleep wake rhythm disorder*) or (circadian rhythm disorder*) or (sleep cycle disruption) or (sleep cycle disorder*). Out off 2833 articles screened, 11 studies were included. The prevalence of insomnia is higher among women, and their sleep is more regular and stable compared to men. Studies evaluating the impact of the stressful situation associated with the lockdown on women’s and men’s insomnia present discordant results concerning sex differences. Women’s circadian rhythm was found to be more stable and less fragmented than men’s. However, the progression of peak activity time with age was more pronounced in men. The current literature suggests that risk factors for insomnia and circadian rhythm disorders affect men and women differently. These include cerebrovascular and cardiometabolic factors, shift work, and infections. The long-term effects of insomnia seem to be more relevant for the male sex, shortening lifespan more than in women. By summarizing and analyzing existing studies, we highlight the need for further research to improve understanding of the interaction between sex and sleep.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most prevalent neurodegenerative disease worldwide; therefore, since its initial description, significant progress has been made, yet a mystery remains regarding its pathogenesis and elusive root cause. The widespread distribution of pathological α-synuclein (αSyn) aggregates throughout the body raises inquiries regarding the etiology, which has prompted several hypotheses, with the most prominent one being αSyn-associated proteinopathy. The identification of αSyn protein within Lewy bodies, coupled with genetic evidence linking αSyn locus duplication, triplication, as well as point mutations to familial Parkinson’s disease, has underscored the significance of αSyn in initiating and propagating Lewy body pathology throughout the brain. In monogenic and sporadic PD, the presence of early inflammation and synaptic dysfunction leads to αSyn aggregation and neuronal death through mitochondrial, lysosomal, and endosomal functional impairment. However, much remains to be understood about αSyn pathogenesis, which is heavily grounded in biomarkers and treatment strategies. In this review, we provide emerging new evidence on the current knowledge about αSyn’s pathophysiological impact on PD, and its presumable role as a specific disease biomarker or main target of disease-modifying therapies, highlighting that this understanding today offers the best potential of disease-modifying therapy in the near future.