STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the polysomnographic efficacy and the safety of a range of doses of eszopiclone relative to placebo in patients with primary insomnia. Zolpidem 10 mg was included as an active control. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, crossover study enrolled patients aged 21-64 years meeting the DSM-IV criteria for primary insomnia (n = 65). Patients received 2 nights treatment each with placebo, eszopiclone 1 mg, 2 mg, 2.5 mg, or 3 mg, and zolpidem 10 mg after randomization to one of 6 treatment sequences. Visits were separated by a 3-7 day washout. Objective efficacy was assessed by polysomnography (PSG). The primary endpoint was latency to persistent sleep (LPS); key secondary endpoints were sleep efficiency (SE) and wake time after sleep onset (WASO); other endpoints included wake time during sleep (WTDS) and number of awakenings (NAW), as well as patient-reported variables. RESULTS:LPS and SE were significantly different than placebo for all active treatments (p < 0.05 for all). Significant differences from placebo were noted in the 3 objective sleep maintenance measures (WASO, WTDS, and NAW) for eszopiclone 3 mg (p < 0.05), which was not the case for zolpidem 10 mg or the other eszopiclone doses. The incidence of central nervous system adverse events was 23.4% for zolpidem 10 mg, 6.2% to 12.5% for the eszopiclone doses, and 7.9% for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to placebo, all active treatments were effective in reducing LPS and increasing SE. Eszopiclone 3 mg was significantly different from placebo on the 3 PSG measures of sleep maintenance (WASO, WTDS, and NAW). Significant differences between zolpidem 10 mg and eszopiclone (2 mg or 3 mg) were not observed for PSG-measured outcomes, although the study was not powered to detect differences between the active drug conditions.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the polysomnographic efficacy and the safety of a range of doses of eszopiclone relative to placebo in patients with primary insomnia. Zolpidem 10 mg was included as an active control. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, crossover study enrolled patients aged 21-64 years meeting the DSM-IV criteria for primary insomnia (n = 65). Patients received 2 nights treatment each with placebo, eszopiclone 1 mg, 2 mg, 2.5 mg, or 3 mg, and zolpidem 10 mg after randomization to one of 6 treatment sequences. Visits were separated by a 3-7 day washout. Objective efficacy was assessed by polysomnography (PSG). The primary endpoint was latency to persistent sleep (LPS); key secondary endpoints were sleep efficiency (SE) and wake time after sleep onset (WASO); other endpoints included wake time during sleep (WTDS) and number of awakenings (NAW), as well as patient-reported variables. RESULTS: LPS and SE were significantly different than placebo for all active treatments (p < 0.05 for all). Significant differences from placebo were noted in the 3 objective sleep maintenance measures (WASO, WTDS, and NAW) for eszopiclone 3 mg (p < 0.05), which was not the case for zolpidem 10 mg or the other eszopiclone doses. The incidence of central nervous system adverse events was 23.4% for zolpidem 10 mg, 6.2% to 12.5% for the eszopiclone doses, and 7.9% for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to placebo, all active treatments were effective in reducing LPS and increasing SE. Eszopiclone 3 mg was significantly different from placebo on the 3 PSG measures of sleep maintenance (WASO, WTDS, and NAW). Significant differences between zolpidem 10 mg and eszopiclone (2 mg or 3 mg) were not observed for PSG-measured outcomes, although the study was not powered to detect differences between the active drug conditions.
Authors: Maurizio Fava; W Vaughn McCall; Andrew Krystal; Thomas Wessel; Robert Rubens; Judy Caron; David Amato; Thomas Roth Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2006-04-03 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Sejal V Jain; Paul S Horn; Narong Simakajornboon; Dean W Beebe; Katherine Holland; Anna W Byars; Tracy A Glauser Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Michael J Sateia; Daniel J Buysse; Andrew D Krystal; David N Neubauer; Jonathan L Heald Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: P Hoever; G Dorffner; H Beneš; T Penzel; H Danker-Hopfe; M J Barbanoj; G Pillar; B Saletu; O Polo; D Kunz; J Zeitlhofer; S Berg; M Partinen; C L Bassetti; B Högl; I O Ebrahim; E Holsboer-Trachsler; H Bengtsson; Y Peker; U-M Hemmeter; E Chiossi; G Hajak; J Dingemanse Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Donald Hilty; Julie S Young; James A Bourgeois; Sally Klein; Kimberly A Hardin Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 2.711