Morgane Rousselet1,2,3, Fanny Feuillet2, Marie Gerardin1,2, Pascale Jolliet1,2, Jean-Benoit Hardouin2, Caroline Victorri-Vigneau1,2. 1. a Centre for Evaluation and Information on Pharmacodependence - Addictovigilance , Clinical Pharmacology Department, University Hospital , Nantes , France. 2. b INSERM U1246 SPHERE "methods in Patient-centered outcomes and Health Research" , Nantes University , Nantes , France. 3. c Addictology and Psychiatry Department , University Hospital , Nantes , France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In France, an addictovigilance network is responsible for evaluating drug dependence, by drawing on pharmacoepidemiological studies, clinical studies and by assessing healthcare professionals' reports on problematic consumption. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine whether zolpidem and zopiclone have different dependence profiles, based on healthcare professionals' reports, and to identify various consumer dependence profiles among zolpidem users and among zopiclone users. Dependence in reports was assessed using the EGAP scale; a scale developed using the DSM diagnostic dependence criteria. RESULTS: The comparison of dependence profiles for zolpidem and zopiclone showed differences both in total EGAP score and EGAP item positivity. The descriptive analysis showed that EGAP scores were higher for zolpidem than for zopiclone, suggesting more severe problematic consumption with zolpidem. For zolpidem 2 subpopulations of consumers were identified, with one subpopulation's consumption being more severe than the other, with a significantly higher total EGAP score and more harmful consequences. No subpopulation was highlighted for zopiclone. CONCLUSION: These results were in favour of a higher prevalence of physical and compulsive signs of dependence and of harmful consequences of dependence, with zolpidem than with zopiclone.
INTRODUCTION: In France, an addictovigilance network is responsible for evaluating drug dependence, by drawing on pharmacoepidemiological studies, clinical studies and by assessing healthcare professionals' reports on problematic consumption. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine whether zolpidem and zopiclone have different dependence profiles, based on healthcare professionals' reports, and to identify various consumer dependence profiles among zolpidem users and among zopiclone users. Dependence in reports was assessed using the EGAP scale; a scale developed using the DSM diagnostic dependence criteria. RESULTS: The comparison of dependence profiles for zolpidem and zopiclone showed differences both in total EGAP score and EGAP item positivity. The descriptive analysis showed that EGAP scores were higher for zolpidem than for zopiclone, suggesting more severe problematic consumption with zolpidem. For zolpidem 2 subpopulations of consumers were identified, with one subpopulation's consumption being more severe than the other, with a significantly higher total EGAP score and more harmful consequences. No subpopulation was highlighted for zopiclone. CONCLUSION: These results were in favour of a higher prevalence of physical and compulsive signs of dependence and of harmful consequences of dependence, with zolpidem than with zopiclone.
Authors: Marie Gérardin; Morgane Rousselet; Pascal Caillet; Marie Grall-Bronnec; Pierre Loué; Pascale Jolliet; C Victorri-Vigneau Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692