Current medical research and opinion · 2010
Sublingual zolpidem in early onset of sleep compared to oral zolpidem: polysomnographic study in patients with primary insomnia.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Staner Corinne, Joly Frédéric, Jacquot Nathalie, Vlasova Irina D, Nehlin Maria, Lundqvist Thomas, Edenius Charlotte, Staner Luc
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the hypnotic effects of a single dose of a sublingual formulation of zolpidem (Edluar*) 10 mg vs oral formulation (Ambien dagger ) 10 mg by polysomnography (PSG) in DSM-IV primary insomnia patients. Primary objective was to compare the two formulations on sleep induction, measured by latency to persistent sleep (LPS), sleep onset latency (SOL) and latency to stage 1 (ST1L).
RESEARCH AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, two-period, cross-over multi-centre study in which each period comprised two successive PSG recording nights. Treatment was administered when PSG recordings started. Subjective sleep and residual effects were assessed the next morning.
RESULTS: Seventy female and male patients aged 19-64 were analysed. Sublingual zolpidem significantly shortened LPS by 34% or 10.3 minutes as compared to oral zolpidem (95% CI: -4.3 min to -16.2 min, p = 0.001). SOL and ST1L were also significantly shortened (p < 0.01). Furthermore the two formulations were comparable in terms of sleep maintenance properties based on total sleep time (TST). The improvement in subjective sleep and next-day residual effects did not differ between the two treatments. Both routes of administration were well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that sublingual zolpidem is superior to an equivalent dose of oral zolpidem in terms of sleep inducing properties in a carefully selected sample of primary insomnia patients.
RESEARCH AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, two-period, cross-over multi-centre study in which each period comprised two successive PSG recording nights. Treatment was administered when PSG recordings started. Subjective sleep and residual effects were assessed the next morning.
RESULTS: Seventy female and male patients aged 19-64 were analysed. Sublingual zolpidem significantly shortened LPS by 34% or 10.3 minutes as compared to oral zolpidem (95% CI: -4.3 min to -16.2 min, p = 0.001). SOL and ST1L were also significantly shortened (p < 0.01). Furthermore the two formulations were comparable in terms of sleep maintenance properties based on total sleep time (TST). The improvement in subjective sleep and next-day residual effects did not differ between the two treatments. Both routes of administration were well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that sublingual zolpidem is superior to an equivalent dose of oral zolpidem in terms of sleep inducing properties in a carefully selected sample of primary insomnia patients.