2001•Journal of International Medical ResearchOpen access

A Double-Blind Comparative Study of Zolpidem versus Zopiclone in the Treatment of Chronic Primary Insomnia

Sueharu Tsutsui, Zolpidem Study Group

Open full text 35 citations

Abstract

Zolpidem (10 mg/day) and zopiclone (7.5 mg/day), administered at night, were compared in a 14-day, double-blind, equivalence trial on 479 chronic primary insomniacs (zolpidem, 231; zopiclone, 248) throughout Japan, with a 1-week follow-up to assess rebound. The primary endpoint was the investigators' rating of global improvement of sleep disorders. A total of 32 patients in the zolpidem group (13.9%) and 45 patients in the zopiclone group (18.1%) withdrew from the study before the end of the treatment. In the zolpidem group, 67.9% (142/209) of patients were rated at least 'moderately improved' versus 61.6% (135/219) with zopiclone, zolpidem being at least as effective as zopiclone (90% confidence interval: -1.7, 14.3). With zolpidem, sleep onset latency improved in significantly more patients (85.8% versus 77.5%) and significantly fewer patients showed aggravated sleep onset latency relative to baseline at follow-up (4.5% versus 15.4%). Significantly fewer patients receiving zolpidem experienced drug-related adverse events (31.3% versus 45.3%), with bitter taste representing 5.8% (six of 104) of such complaints with zolpidem compared with 39.9% (69/173) with zopiclone. In conclusion, zolpidem was at least as effective as zopiclone, showed significantly less rebound on discontinuation and was better tolerated.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Zolpidem (10 mg/day) and zopiclone (7.5 mg/day), administered at night, were compared in a 14-day, double-blind, equivalence trial on 479 chronic primary insomniacs (zolpidem, 231; zopiclone, 248) throughout Japan, with a 1-week follow-up to assess rebound. The primary endpoint was the investigators' rating of global improvement of sleep disorders. A total of 32 patients in the zolpidem group (13.9%) and 45 patients in the zopiclone group (18.1%) withdrew from the study before the end of the treatment. In the zolpidem group, 67.9% (142/209) of patients were rated at least 'moderately improved' versus 61.6% (135/219) with zopiclone, zolpidem being at least as effective as zopiclone (90% confidence interval: -1.7, 14.3). With zolpidem, sleep onset latency improved in significantly more patients (85.8% versus 77.5%) and significantly fewer patients showed aggravated sleep onset latency relative to baseline at follow-up (4.5% versus 15.4%). Significantly fewer patients receiving zolpidem experienced drug-related adverse events (31.3% versus 45.3%), with bitter taste representing 5.8% (six of 104) of such complaints with zolpidem compared with 39.9% (69/173) with zopiclone. In conclusion, zolpidem was at least as effective as zopiclone, showed significantly less rebound on discontinuation and was better tolerated.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 35 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Zolpidem (10 mg/day) and zopiclone (7.5 mg/day), administered at night, were compared in a 14-day, double-blind, equivalence trial on 479 chronic primary insomniacs (zolpidem, 231; zopiclone, 248) throughout Japan, with a 1-week follow-up to assess rebound. The primary endpoint was the investigators' rating of global improvement of sleep disorders. A total of 32 patients in the zolpidem group (13.9%) and 45 patients in the zopiclone group (18.1%) withdrew from the study before the end of the treatment. In the zolpidem group, 67.9% (142/209) of patients were rated at least 'moderately improved' versus 61.6% (135/219) with zopiclone, zolpidem being at least as effective as zopiclone (90% confidence interval: -1.7, 14.3). With zolpidem, sleep onset latency improved in significantly more patients (85.8% versus 77.5%) and significantly fewer patients showed aggravated sleep onset latency relative to baseline at follow-up (4.5% versus 15.4%). Significantly fewer patients receiving zolpidem experienced drug-related adverse events (31.3% versus 45.3%), with bitter taste representing 5.8% (six of 104) of such complaints with zolpidem compared with 39.9% (69/173) with zopiclone. In conclusion, zolpidem was at least as effective as zopiclone, showed significantly less rebound on discontinuation and was better tolerated.

Key concepts: Zopiclone, Zolpidem, Medicine, Discontinuation, Hypnotic, Anesthesia, Confidence interval, Primary Insomnia

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Double-Blind Comparative Study of Zolpidem versus Zopiclone in the Treatment of Chronic Primary Insomnia — Research Paper | ScholarLens