Posted by Maxime on April 14, 2005, at 12:35:50
In reply to Symptoms on Lunesta withdrawal?, posted by ed_uk on April 13, 2005, at 18:03:30
That is really interesting! I have taken immovane before. I took it in the 90's. It's available in Canada but not in the US. I would wake up with awful taste in my mouth.
It actually caused "rebound" insomnia for me. I would plan to take it for 3 nights (to try and get into a sleep pattern). The first night I would sleep. The second night it would take much longer and the third night I wouldn't sleep at at. They gave it to me in the hospital as well and I told them not to ... but they didn't listen. I didn't know I could say "no". I would be up all night and they would do their 30 minute checks and I would wave to the nurse every time she flashed the flashlight in my face. What the f*ck do they do that?
Now I am not so excited about Lunesta anymore. Yay, more balloons to let go!
Thanks for the info Ed.
xxxx
Maxi> Americans should not be surprised if they suffer worse withdrawal symptoms from Lunesta than from Ambien!!!!
>
> Eszopiclone (Lunesta) is the active component of the older sleeping drug zopiclone (Imovane, Zimovane). Zopiclone has been widely prescribed in the UK since the 1980s.
>
> Zopiclone (Imovane etc) may cause greater 'rebound symptoms' than zolpidem (Ambien)............
>
> J Int Med Res. 2001 May-Jun;29(3):163-77.
>
> A double-blind comparative study of zolpidem versus zopiclone in the treatment of chronic primary insomnia.
>
> Tsutsui S; Zolipidem Study Group.
>
> Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, Toho University Medical School, Omori Hospital, Japan.
>
> 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.
>
> It is hypothesised that zolpidem (Ambien) may be less likely to cause physical dependence (tolerance and withdrawal symptoms) than the benzodiazepines because it is more selective for the omega-1 receptor. Zopiclone is less selective for the omega-1 receptor than zolpidem (Ambien) and so it might be expected to be associated with a higher incidence of physical dependence. Eszopiclone (Lunesta) appears to be almost virtually identical to zopiclone, I cannot imagine that it has any true clinical advantages over zopiclone.
>
> Ed.
poster:Maxime
thread:483849
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050413/msgs/484140.html