Talk:Zopiclone

message: While it was an interest study and definitely relevant to the article, I thought that section needs a better breakdown of the findings.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamieallen (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Military study section

message: Zopiclone is the preferred drug prescribed by the NHS for insomnia in the United Kingdom. Other 'Z-Drugs' are only ever prescribed privately. -  I've removed the second claim as Zapelon and Zolpidem and available on the NHS, something you can confirm by checking their entries in the BNF. Also I have an NHS prescription for Zolpidem and a friend of mine has one for Zapelon, so I'm quite certain they are not 'only ever prescribed privately'. Can anyone provide a reference for the first claim? Ian Gottherd (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Private/NHS use

message: Zopiclone is identical to eszopiclone, aside from the fact that it has an extra 50% inactive "filler" -- namely, the inactive isomer of the drug.  Therefore, most of its properties are idential to eszopiclone, so I have copied many of the properties from that entry. Bushing 15:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually find this to be outrageous (that a company can patent a generically-available medicine and sell it at inflated prices in the U.S.). Is there any kind of legal action that can be taken, on the basis that the drug in its slightly altered form offers no tangible benefits over the generic? Historian932 (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try to get the patent system changed, but I suspect there might be some opposition from drug companies (see Generic drug#Patent issues for some history). Nobody's forced to use the new version that I know of. I find it more interesting that drug companies can so successfully market what is sometimes "just an overpriced form of an existing generic": there's some value in not taking a chemical you don't need, and there's a heck of a lot of money spent on marketing and convincing doctors and patients that this new thing is so much better. Given how many people will pay extra for a brand-name on the same active ingredient as a generic, maybe I should not be surprised:( DMacks (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The inactive "filler" (R-zopiclone)is the carcinogen.  Hence why the FDA will not approve of the drug, which is actually quite a reverse to the status quo.  It is usually more difficult to approve a drug in Europe than in the US.  Also, the US version is not "slightly altered."  You have to remove ~50% of the substance (the R-Zopiclone from the eszopiclone) which with any chemical can be a highly complex process.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite your reference for the inactive "filler" (R-Zopiclone) as being a known carcinogen. The R-Zopiclone is one of the isomers created in the production of Zopiclone and has been linked to some side effects, hence the reason it is removed. In that regard, Eszopiclone may be more beneficial than Zopiclone, and costs more to produce, hence the reason you have to pay extra for it. Individual isomers of racemic drug mixtures are individually patentable in the US.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.45.226 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eszopiclone and zopiclone

message: I've asked a pharmacist to look up vision related side effects for Zopiclone, and he has indicated to me the only one that's on that big heavy text is ambiyopia - dimmed vision. Ambiyopia is can be specific to dimmed vision at night, and may be caused by toxicity, or by (in this case) prescription drugs.
There's no word that blurred vision is in that list. 142.58.101.27 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blurred vision? 

message: A statement as specific as this really needs to be verified directly with a specific reference: "The risk of dependency on zopiclone when used for less than 4 weeks or used occasionally is very low." If a direct citation for this can't be found, it should be removed from the article. - Pacula 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this for a source? It suggests that Zopiclone has a low addiction level if taken in therapeutic doses for a few weeks, and the statement is supported by citing the following two studies:
1. Wadworth AN, McTavish D. Zopiclone: a review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy as a hypnotic. Drugs & Aging 1993;3:441-59. 
2. Lader M. Zopiclone: is there any dependence and abuse potential? J Neurol 1997;244:S18-S22. Albert Wincentz (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: not a great cite, but the patient information leaflet for zopiclone in the UK says "If you are taking any medicines belonging to the hypnotic group there is a possibility that you may become dependant on them  However, with Zimovane this possibility is small."  I'm not sure what rules guide what info they can put into leaflets. :-/ Dan Beale-Cocks 21:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific claim in need of a specific citation 

message: The article states that eszopiclone is sold in North America whereas zopiclone is available in Europe. In fact, zopiclone is sold in Canada as well, where eszopiclone is unavailable. Puck35 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunesta in U.S. only 

message: The first sentence in this section has a misleading citation.  The reference cites a SINGLE incident of a person with a history of suicidal ideation who drowned.  This person had high levels of zopiclone and a benzodiazepine according to the toxicology report.  This statement should be revised or removed as it is not properly cited. It is misleading to use this citation as it is clearly not the intent of the author to make a sweeping claim linking zopiclone and suicide- the article in question is a case study.  In fact, the title of this citation refers to it as an "uncommon case".Angemedic (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a few cites showing zopiclone used in overdose - 78 year old 350mg zopiclone only, contributory, not cause of death.  I was going to remove the death bit, but I won't now. Dan Beale-Cocks 10:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there are plenty of source showing zopiclone is the primary cause of overdose death. :-( Dan Beale-Cocks 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  overdose 

message: There is no citation re zopiclone and ovarian cancer.  On the benzo addication page reference is made to z-drugs and ovarian cancer- two different studies showed opposing results. Due to personal experience with ovarian cancer, I have read quite a bit of literature regarding the pathophysiology of this disease and while OC is commonly linked with smoking, genetics, hormonal birth control use, hormone replacement therapy and environment, I have never seen anything linking it with z-drug or benzo use.  The above statement should be revised or removed due to its being misleading- single studies should not be used as citations when making sweeping claims about the etiology of any cancer.  If the purported link between this drug and OC is factual and conclusive there should be solid evidence to back it up. Angemedic (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed a paragraph of uncited claims that 'zoplicone causes cancer' and similar conclusions re the discussion above. A quick reminder: Wikipedia policy is that such inclusions MUST be verified by relevant and reliable data, with directions embedded in the text to its listing at the end of the article - and if not, it stays out. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The next para down went on to give the cited/verifiable info that there have been investigations into a possible link that cannot be discounted. Fine, no problem with that. This is superficially a repeat of the para I removed but is instead the more accurate one as the cited data does not conclude that "zopiclone causes cancer". That statement is implying that if you take zopiclone, you'll get cancer. Which is misleading. The rest of the para I struck out because the info was repeated, more clearly, in that following one; however I've no problem with that going back, although the statements regarding the FDA need to be supported inline. But I think the line "zopiclone causes cancer" is still a problem, though. The cited reference does not support it imho. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer 

message: According to this paper , the terms "BZ receptor" or "GABA/BZ receptor" or "omega receptor" should no longer be used. They recommend the term benzodiazepine site. There has been a bit of a disagreement with an editor on this zopiclone article over this and he has reverted me. The section in GABAA_receptor was a total misrepresentation of the cited reference which the editor I believe was using as a "reference". I spent an hour reading the full text reference and after reading it I fixed the offending paragraph in GABAA_receptor wiki article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GABAa receptors

message: I have changed the UK legal status; as Zopiclone is a 'Class C' controlled substance in the United Kingdom. :) Dvmedis (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source for this?  Zopiclone is a prescription only medication in England, but it does not appear on this UK government list of controlled medications, and this 2004 link says that zolpiden is one the list but zopiclone is not. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Legal Status 

message: I arrived at this page to repair links to the disambiguation page "Addiction."  I removed a couple of links later in the article (What are those called?  Redundant?).  I got confused, though:  The first instance of "addictive" is not linked at all.  I would simply link it to "Substance use disorder," as I have been doing on similar pages, except that the second use of the word "addictive" is linked to "Drug addiction," which is redirected to "Substance dependence."  I am afraid to do anything.  Should I move the link to the first use of "addictive"?  Should I make that first link to "Substance use disorder" or to "Substance dependence"?  Thanks.
Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation links 

message: This whole paragraph is completely unsourced, and seeing as to this article is quite negative as it is I feel it should either be sourced immediately or removed completely. Adding citation needed in any case.
:Zopiclone is known to, in some case, induce a state of amnesia, which is largely related (and not too dissimilar to 'sleep-walking'). This can extend to sleep-eating, sleep-talking (quite naturally), to dangerously 'sleep driving'. It is therefore usually not used as an anti-anxiety drug (such as Benzodiazepines), as the patient may be liable to make very poor judgment decisions (as they are essentially mentally 'asleep') and attempt dangerous activities. - With absolutely no recollection at all of the events.
Troed (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisiting this page a year later I made a quick search before intending to remove the paragraph. However, that quick search did turn up a suitable, albeit a bit old, source. Adding. Troed (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraindications - uncited claim 

message: I changed some wording to "It is recommended that zopiclone be taken on a short-term basis, usually a week or less." and added a reliable good quality trustworthy source as a reference, but I have no freaking idea how references work on wikipedia.  So I don't think it's working.  It shows up as number one in the list, but there's no link to the text I just quoted. 31.109.0.73 (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  added reference not working? 

message: This is a racemate, the IUPAC name is correct. Thus, the 3D structure showing a specific configuration is wrong. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the two stereoisomers differ in their actions? The first mention in the article on Eszopiclone article ("..is the active dextrorotatory stereoisomer of zopiclone..") makes it sound as though zopiclone doesn't have any activity.  I gather from this article as well as the Eszopiclone one that the two seem to be marketed mutually in the U.S. and Europe, with the (maybe) FDA and EMA each denying "significant difference to be new" approval of the "other" isomer.  (I wonder if this has come up in many other instances - the Escitalopram article mentions this issue as being "controversial" in that case) Jimw338 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereochemistry 

message: Throughout this article I see zopiclone equated to benzodiadzepines. However, having tried both I can testify that they produce different kind of effects. Benzodiadzepines produce anxiolytic effects, while zopiclone starts to take your consciousness away, like the way it happens when you are falling in sleep. I think this confusion happens because they both work through same reseptor type, the GABA_A receptor. But this is general inhibitory receptor complex in the brain and is expressed in different ways in different neural circuits. These medicines work trough different subunits of GABA_A receptor complex producing different kind of results. Conflating them together is misleading. 2002:58C1:73FD:0:0:0:58C1:73FD (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissimilarity to benzos 

message: I myself am just encountering Zopiclone and I am pleasantly surprised by it and looking to understand it and to try to objectively compare it with other drugs in order to deduce why it might be working for me. I'm not that sensitive to the way in which Wiki articles are written, and I confine my contributions to the Talk pages, but this article - sophisticated though it appears to be in its use of language and facts - seems to be written with a clear and consistent bias either against this particular drug or its manufacturer or against such medication in general : or it appears to be so up until the section headed ' pharmocology ' which thereafter is written more or less normally. Prior to that the person writing the introductory part contrives to make over two hundred negative or negatively slanted remarks, many of the repeated for emphasis, and talks by analogy about other drugs which they clearly do not like whilst advocating that people should resort to the psychological remedies which they clearly remedy. I actually marked off potentially 231 examples of this negative bias and found nothing to enter in a column for anything positive said about Zopiclone : the idea that there is nothing good to be said about it is preposterous, and whilst I do not know anything much about Zopiclone yet I do know how to recognise bias reporting about this and many other subjects : if psychological interventions are so much more beneficial than psychiatric interventions - as this person advocates - then why haven't they worked in this person's case ? Alright : I can see that their case is a complex one involving obsessively-compulsive-paranoid-delusions-of-the -the-dangers-of-psychiatry-in-order-to-deny-the-authority-of-those-who-might-medicate-them-to-do-so ... but, look, this person need not have deliberately written the useful and truthful stuff out of view : they could have just enter at the top of every Wikipedia page the slogan which they used to teach us at school - " DRUGS !!! - JUST SAY NO !!! " - then leave the objective factual discussions about Napoleon to others ... You are to take this as gentle teasing please, but this was bad behaviour : people need to know the benefits as well as the hazards of Zopiclone - and to be given a reasonable account of the risks, please.DaiSaw (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias : the first half of this Zopiclone article is not written in a detached way 

message: The article claims: "Zopiclone reduces the total amount of time spent in REM-sleep as well as delaying its onset." About every other article regarding Zopiclone and REM-sleep states the exact opposite, that Zopiclone does NOT affect the amount of REM-sleep. This 20+ year old claim is at best disputed. Also agree that this article is very biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasalts (talk • contribs) 14:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  REM-sleep 

message: I deleted the statement that this drug may cause schizophrenia. There was one footnote to a citation that was litter more than a comment. No one knows of ANY drug that CAUSES schizophrenia, though some drugs (e.g., marijuana) have been known to exacerbate symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. JohnEnsign  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEnsign (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion regarding schizophrenia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Zopiclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160109073344/http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2005/fr0404.htm to http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2005/fr0404.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Zopiclone was developed and first introduced in 1986 by Rhône-Poulenc S.A., now part of Sanofi-Aventis, the main worldwide manufacturer." - all very well and good, but why is it called "zopiclone"?  — Scott • talk 23:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring absence 

message: I has been a while since I bumped into most of the psychopharmacology articles, here. But now that I did, this article on zopiclone suddenly reads like a goddamn ideological warzone. I haven't even gotten to the rest in its link clowd, say the rest of the Z-drugs, or the proper bentzodiazepine series, or whatever else we use to sedate people. But I fear similar mayhem would be expected there as well.
I don't think any kind of procedural intervention can ever hope to remedy this kind of a silent, motivated editing...influence. However a community project, designed to include editorship and decisively to exclude primary expertise, might just do the trick.
Anybody game? Over a wider swath of pages of course, and not just this. Starting with the non-bentzos, and then progressively including everything from bentodiazepines to barbiturates to even ethyl alcohol, as they pertain to GABA-ergic sedation as a class. I believe a focused, dedicated project like that could really help bring about some order into many related articles at the same time. This one included. Decoy (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a warzone 

message: Currently the second paragraph has sentences out of context and make no sense:
'And zopiclone is also made of herbs' acid. These can include a range of symptoms similar to those of benzodiazepine withdrawal. Although withdrawal from therapeutic doses of zopiclone and its isomers (i.e. eszopiclone) They use the herbs oil to make the zopiclone. Then do not typically present with convulsions'
Andrew ranfurly (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing out the vandalism. Don't be afraid to be WP:BOLD and fix mistakes like this yourself! It looks like the problematic edits . ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 20:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Zopiclone is in the Ashton benozodiazepin withdrawal manual, since withdrawal is as devastating as with actual benzodiazepines. This MUST be mentioned clearly in this article. GABA-drug dependency is one of the big remaining hell's we still have in our culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8680:3241:350E:EE7C:1F33:D9D (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No section about severe withdrawal? 

message: I've edited this to clear up some small scientific inaccuracies and imprecisions. The term "benzodiazepine receptor", although still in occasional use, should be retired. It's a historical term to represent the fact it was known benzodiazepines must bind to something, but the GABA-A receptor was not identified until about 20 years later. Also, there's some inaccurate references to alpha1/2/etc "sites". These are component subunits of the receptor (GABA-A receptors have five subunits, 2 alpha, 2 beta, one other; there are multiple variations of each type of subunit).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agema (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific terminology 

message: The article, citing a source (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-005-0082-8),  claims that
"Long-term users of hypnotic drugs for sleep disorders develop only partial tolerance to adverse effects on driving, with users of hypnotic drugs even after one year of use still showing an increased motor vehicle accident rate"
The second part of the statement is however misleading. Reading the primary source (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/417260) reveals that the findings of the one year study are for long half-life benzodiazepines, while short half-life benzos did not show an increased risk. Generalizing to all hypnotic drugs is not accurate.
I would suggest adding/updating the reference to the primary source and updating the statement to be more specific.
Guillaume.web (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement about partial tolerance in Contraindications section