Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 24 July 2011

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Zopiclone, your personal experiences of Zopiclone, or for asking for advice related to medical treatment of insomnia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Zopiclone, your personal experiences of Zopiclone, or for asking for advice related to medical treatment of insomnia at the Reference desk.

Pharmacology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Private/NHS use

Zopiclone is the preferred drug prescribed by the NHS for insomnia in the United Kingdom. Other 'Z-Drugs' are only ever prescribed privately. - I've removed the second claim as Zapelon and Zolpidem and available on the NHS, something you can confirm by checking their entries in the BNF. Also I have an NHS prescription for Zolpidem and a friend of mine has one for Zapelon, so I'm quite certain they are not 'only ever prescribed privately'. Can anyone provide a reference for the first claim? Ian Gottherd (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eszopiclone and zopiclone

Zopiclone is identical to eszopiclone, aside from the fact that it has an extra 50% inactive "filler" -- namely, the inactive isomer of the drug. Therefore, most of its properties are idential to eszopiclone, so I have copied many of the properties from that entry. Bushing 15:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC).

I actually find this to be outrageous (that a company can patent a generically-available medicine and sell it at inflated prices in the U.S.). Is there any kind of legal action that can be taken, on the basis that the drug in its slightly altered form offers no tangible benefits over the generic? Historian932 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You could try to get the patent system changed, but I suspect there might be some opposition from drug companies (see Generic drug#Patent issues for some history). Nobody's forced to use the new version that I know of. I find it more interesting that drug companies can so successfully market what is sometimes "just an overpriced form of an existing generic": there's some value in not taking a chemical you don't need, and there's a heck of a lot of money spent on marketing and convincing doctors and patients that this new thing is so much better. Given how many people will pay extra for a brand-name on the same active ingredient as a generic, maybe I should not be surprised:( DMacks (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The inactive "filler" (R-zopiclone)is the carcinogen. Hence why the FDA will not approve of the drug, which is actually quite a reverse to the status quo. It is usually more difficult to approve a drug in Europe than in the US. Also, the US version is not "slightly altered." You have to remove ~50% of the substance (the R-Zopiclone from the eszopiclone) which with any chemical can be a highly complex process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cite your reference for the inactive "filler" (R-Zopiclone) as being a known carcinogen. The R-Zopiclone is one of the isomers created in the production of Zopiclone and has been linked to some side effects, hence the reason it is removed. In that regard, Eszopiclone may be more beneficial than Zopiclone, and costs more to produce, hence the reason you have to pay extra for it. Individual isomers of racemic drug mixtures are individually patentable in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.45.226 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blurred vision?

I've asked a pharmacist to look up vision related side effects for Zopiclone, and he has indicated to me the only one that's on that big heavy text is ambiyopia - dimmed vision. Ambiyopia is can be specific to dimmed vision at night, and may be caused by toxicity, or by (in this case) prescription drugs. There's no word that blurred vision is in that list. 142.58.101.27 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

Blurred vision could be due to the dehydration and the associated swelling, it's something that can affect your eyesight as well. --Snowgrouse 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently on this funky tablet before bed, feeling abit dizzy though and wikipedia edited has proved difficult. JHJPDJKDKHI! 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

Specific claim in need of a specific citation

A statement as specific as this really needs to be verified directly with a specific reference: "The risk of dependency on zopiclone when used for less than 4 weeks or used occasionally is very low." If a direct citation for this can't be found, it should be removed from the article. - Pacula 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this for a source? It suggests that Zopiclone has a low addiction level if taken in therapeutic doses for a few weeks, and the statement is supported by citing the following two studies:

1. Wadworth AN, McTavish D. Zopiclone: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy as a hypnotic. Drugs & Aging 1993;3:441-59.

2. Lader M. Zopiclone: is there any dependence and abuse potential? J Neurol 1997;244:S18-S22. Albert Wincentz (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

not a great cite, but the patient information leaflet for zopiclone in the UK says "If you are taking any medicines belonging to the hypnotic group there is a possibility that you may become dependant on them However, with Zimovane this possibility is small." I'm not sure what rules guide what info they can put into leaflets. :-/ Dan Beale-Cocks 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lunesta in U.S. only

The article states that eszopiclone is sold in North America whereas zopiclone is available in Europe. In fact, zopiclone is sold in Canada as well, where eszopiclone is unavailable. Puck35 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

overdose

The first sentence in this section has a misleading citation. The reference cites a SINGLE incident of a person with a history of suicidal ideation who drowned. This person had high levels of zopiclone and a benzodiazepine according to the toxicology report. This statement should be revised or removed as it is not properly cited. It is misleading to use this citation as it is clearly not the intent of the author to make a sweeping claim linking zopiclone and suicide- the article in question is a case study. In fact, the title of this citation refers to it as an "uncommon case".Angemedic (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Angemedic

Overdose of zopiclone may present with excessive sedation, depressed respiratory function which may progress to coma and possibly death. - is there any cite for the coma or death part of this? I'm not aware of anyone ever anywhere dying from zopiclone overdose. Zopiclone is used quite a lot in UK mental health trusts because it's "so safe". Dan Beale-Cocks 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few cites showing zopiclone used in overdose - 78 year old 350mg zopiclone only, contributory, not cause of death. I was going to remove the death bit, but I won't now. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are plenty of source showing zopiclone is the primary cause of overdose death. :-( Dan Beale-Cocks 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cancer

There is no citation re zopiclone and ovarian cancer. On the benzo addication page reference is made to z-drugs and ovarian cancer- two different studies showed opposing results. Due to personal experience with ovarian cancer, I have read quite a bit of literature regarding the pathophysiology of this disease and while OC is commonly linked with smoking, genetics, hormonal birth control use, hormone replacement therapy and environment, I have never seen anything linking it with z-drug or benzo use. The above statement should be revised or removed due to its being misleading- single studies should not be used as citations when making sweeping claims about the etiology of any cancer. If the purported link between this drug and OC is factual and conclusive there should be solid evidence to back it up. Angemedic (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Angemedic

This study - Incidence of Cancer in Individuals Receiving Chronic Zopiclone or Eszopiclone Requires Prospective Study does say that, uh, the incidence of cancer in people getting zopiclone long-term needs to be studied, but it doesn't say that they found "an increase in cancer rates" in people with HIV/AIDS who had been given zopiclone. It's hard to see how relevant the animal studies are:

and carcinomas in males were seen, at the highest dose of 100 mg/kg/d. While this is considerably above a typical human daily dose, the mechanism for this increase in mammary tumors is unknown. The thyroid tumors are thought to increase levels of thyroid stimulating hormone via a mechanism not thought to be relevant to humans though once again, the relevance to humans of these data are questioned.

Since the study is uncontrolled - no double blinds or control groups etc - it's not suitable for this article to say "zopiclone causes cancer in immuno-suppressed patients". Dan Beale-Cocks 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I printed off the article and took it to work and showed it to a physician and they tended to agree with you that the study did not conclusively state whether zopiclone caused cancer or not and only raised concerns of possible cancer warranting further study etc. I am happy with your rewording of my edit by yourself. Thank you for bringing my misinterpretation of the article to my attention.--Stilldoggy (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph of uncited claims that 'zoplicone causes cancer' and similar conclusions re the discussion above. A quick reminder: Misplaced Pages policy is that such inclusions MUST be verified by relevant and reliable data, with directions embedded in the text to its listing at the end of the article - and if not, it stays out. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those claims were cited that you removed, check the reference. The above conversation was in regard to the first reference. The above conversation was resolved. I am reverting your edits because it is cited data.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The next para down went on to give the cited/verifiable info that there have been investigations into a possible link that cannot be discounted. Fine, no problem with that. This is superficially a repeat of the para I removed but is instead the more accurate one as the cited data does not conclude that "zopiclone causes cancer". That statement is implying that if you take zopiclone, you'll get cancer. Which is misleading. The rest of the para I struck out because the info was repeated, more clearly, in that following one; however I've no problem with that going back, although the statements regarding the FDA need to be supported inline. But I think the line "zopiclone causes cancer" is still a problem, though. The cited reference does not support it imho. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point about it being potentially misleading to the reader in that some readers may think that the statement means that if they take zopiclone they will 100% get cancer. I changed the wording to make sure the reader understands that it is talking in terms of increased risk/chance of developing cancer.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GABAa receptors

According to this paper , the terms "BZ receptor" or "GABA/BZ receptor" or "omega receptor" should no longer be used. They recommend the term benzodiazepine site. There has been a bit of a disagreement with an editor on this zopiclone article over this and he has reverted me. The section in GABAA_receptor was a total misrepresentation of the cited reference which the editor I believe was using as a "reference". I spent an hour reading the full text reference and after reading it I fixed the offending paragraph in GABAA_receptor wiki article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

UK Legal Status

I have changed the UK legal status; as Zopiclone is a 'Class C' controlled substance in the United Kingdom. :) Dvmedis (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? Zopiclone is a prescription only medication in England, but it does not appear on this UK government list of controlled medications, and this 2004 link says that zolpiden is one the list but zopiclone is not. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

SOLD AS naming?

The brand name in the UK is Zimovane. But that doesn't mean the medication is sold as Zimovane in the UK. So, is there a fix for the first sentence?
"Zopiclone, sold as Imovane in Canada, and Zimovane in the UK" is misleading. People in England will get what their local health authority put on the list of cheapest versions, which may be the generics or may be Zimovane. I have no idea what happens in Wales or Scotland, as their health care has been devolved. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Zopiclone negative reviewed for benefit of other meds?

It's really stunning that almost this whole wiki is full of negative health info about Zopiclone.

Look for example tot he Zolpidem wiki. Is this industry that has more interest?

However, Zopiclone betters Slow Wave deep sleep / delta waves. Zolpidem doesn't do that, but betters REM sleep. Based on this article, I first refused an offer from my doctor for Zopiclone and insisted for Zolpidem. But after a second discussion with my doctor, I analysed the sleep wiki and that both Zolpidem and Zopiclone have advantages over eachother. Rigth now I use half tab Zopiclone for the first half of the night and another half tab of Zolpidem for the second, as this seems to better imitate normal healthy sleep.

Its hardly to find these facts through this almost anti-zopiclone propaganda. 190.10.21.230 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe put this article and its negative reporting in-line with the way other sleep med wiki's are formulated...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.21.230 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ys; look to the wiki of its isomere: http://en.wikipedia.org/Eszopiclone That is sold for more money and is not that negative as this wiki. 190.10.21.230 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges I feel. Zolpidem is pharmacodynamically not the same as zopiclone, zolpidem is more selective for type I benzodiazepine receptors where as zopiclone has little selectivity for benzodiazepine receptors and is almost identical to benzodiazepines, as per WHO reference. So this is probably why the zolpidem article is more favourable as articles reflect the facts in reliable sources. According to reference zopiclone reduces delta waves/slow wave sleep (deep sleep). You disagree with this and feel zopiclone improves sleep architecture, if you have a reference feel free to add it. Your facts at the moment are original research. You are more than welcome to find reliable sources, per WP:MEDRS for anything that you want to add to the article. Misplaced Pages is not recommended for medical advice so you were not using wikipedia for what it is intended for and at your own risk. It is just an encyclopedia.

Eszopiclone is a relatively newly patented drug so the peer reviewed literature on it is not very extensive in comparison to the racemic zopiclone which has been on the market for decades, so is not a fair comparison.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised at the negative tone of much of the article. While the critical comments are generally well sourced, there will always be media and academic sources voicing criticism of any widely prescribed psychoactive drug, and balance is needed. Much of the article currently reads as if written by someone with an undisclosed personal or commercial agenda. --Ef80 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

I arrived at this page to repair links to the disambiguation page "Addiction." I removed a couple of links later in the article (What are those called? Redundant?). I got confused, though: The first instance of "addictive" is not linked at all. I would simply link it to "Substance use disorder," as I have been doing on similar pages, except that the second use of the word "addictive" is linked to "Drug addiction," which is redirected to "Substance dependence." I am afraid to do anything. Should I move the link to the first use of "addictive"? Should I make that first link to "Substance use disorder" or to "Substance dependence"? Thanks.

Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Contraindications - uncited claim

This whole paragraph is completely unsourced, and seeing as to this article is quite negative as it is I feel it should either be sourced immediately or removed completely. Adding citation needed in any case.

Zopiclone is known to, in some case, induce a state of amnesia, which is largely related (and not too dissimilar to 'sleep-walking'). This can extend to sleep-eating, sleep-talking (quite naturally), to dangerously 'sleep driving'. It is therefore usually not used as an anti-anxiety drug (such as Benzodiazepines), as the patient may be liable to make very poor judgment decisions (as they are essentially mentally 'asleep') and attempt dangerous activities. - With absolutely no recollection at all of the events.

Troed (talk)

• B-Class pharmacology articles
• High-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles