Talk:Zopiclone

Military study section

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)

Private/NHS use

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)

Eszopiclone and zopiclone

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blurred vision?

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).

Blurred vision could be due to the dehydration and the associated swelling, it's something that can affect your eyesight as well. --Snowgrouse 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently on this funky tablet before bed, feeling abit dizzy though and wikipedia edited has proved difficult. JHJPDJKDKHI! 07:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC).

Specific claim in need of a specific citation

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)

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)

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)

The WHO review of zopiclone in 2006 seems to indicate that problems with dependence, withdrawal, driving, side effects, etc. are dose-related. I would like this article to address the issue of dosage more clearly. May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.5.204 (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Lunesta in U.S. only

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)

overdose

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)Angemedic

Overdose of zopiclone may present with excessive sedation, depressed respiratory function which may progress to coma and possibly death. - is there any cite for the coma or death part of this? I'm not aware of anyone ever anywhere dying from zopiclone overdose. Zopiclone is used quite a lot in UK mental health trusts because it's "so safe". Dan Beale-Cocks 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Indeed, there are plenty of source showing zopiclone is the primary cause of overdose death. :-( Dan Beale-Cocks 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cancer

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)Angemedic

This study - Incidence of Cancer in Individuals Receiving Chronic Zopiclone or Eszopiclone Requires Prospective Study does say that, uh, the incidence of cancer in people getting zopiclone long-term needs to be studied, but it doesn't say that they found "an increase in cancer rates" in people with HIV/AIDS who had been given zopiclone. It's hard to see how relevant the animal studies are:

[. . .]and carcinomas in males were seen, at the highest dose of 100 mg/kg/d. While this is considerably above a typical human daily dose, the mechanism for this increase in mammary tumors is unknown. The thyroid tumors are thought to increase levels of thyroid stimulating hormone via a mechanism not thought to be relevant to humans [. . .] though once again, the relevance to humans of these data are questioned.

Since the study is uncontrolled - no double blinds or control groups etc - it's not suitable for this article to say "zopiclone causes cancer in immuno-suppressed patients". Dan Beale-Cocks 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I printed off the article and took it to work and showed it to a physician and they tended to agree with you that the study did not conclusively state whether zopiclone caused cancer or not and only raised concerns of possible cancer warranting further study etc. I am happy with your rewording of my edit by yourself. Thank you for bringing my misinterpretation of the article to my attention.--Stilldoggy (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Those claims were cited that you removed, check the reference. The above conversation was in regard to the first reference. The above conversation was resolved. I am reverting your edits because it is cited data.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I can see your point about it being potentially misleading to the reader in that some readers may think that the statement means that if they take zopiclone they will 100% get cancer. I changed the wording to make sure the reader understands that it is talking in terms of increased risk/chance of developing cancer.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GABAa receptors

According to this paper [1], 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)

UK Legal Status

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)

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)

SOLD AS naming?

The brand name in the UK is Zimovane. But that doesn't mean the medication is sold as Zimovane in the UK. So, is there a fix for the first sentence?
"Zopiclone, sold as Imovane in Canada, and Zimovane in the UK" is misleading. People in England will get what their local health authority put on the list of cheapest versions, which may be the generics or may be Zimovane. I have no idea what happens in Wales or Scotland, as their health care has been devolved. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Prescription drugs are generally not 'sold' as anything in the UK, where it is illegal for drug companies to market prescription drugs directly to patients. NHS prescriptions are almost always written generically, and the pharmacist will dispense the cheapest version available. --Ef80 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fcalon99 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)== Zopiclone negative reviewed for benefit of other meds? ==

It's really stunning that almost this whole wiki is full of negative health info about Zopiclone.

Look for example to the Zolpidem wiki. Is this industry that has more interest?

However, Zopiclone betters Slow Wave deep sleep / delta waves. Zolpidem doesn't do that, but betters REM sleep. Based on this article, I first refused an offer from my doctor for Zopiclone and insisted for Zolpidem. But after a second discussion with my doctor, I analysed the sleep wiki and that both Zolpidem and Zopiclone have advantages over eachother. Rigth now I use half tab Zopiclone for the first half of the night and another half tab of Zolpidem for the second, as this seems to better imitate normal healthy sleep.

Its hardly to find these facts through this almost anti-zopiclone propaganda. 190.10.21.230 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe put this article and its negative reporting in-line with the way other sleep med wiki's are formulated...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.21.230 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ys; look to the wiki of its isomere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eszopiclone That is sold for more money and is not that negative as this wiki. 190.10.21.230 (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges I feel. Zolpidem is pharmacodynamically not the same as zopiclone, zolpidem is more selective for type I benzodiazepine receptors where as zopiclone has little selectivity for benzodiazepine receptors and is almost identical to benzodiazepines, as per WHO reference. So this is probably why the zolpidem article is more favourable as articles reflect the facts in reliable sources. According to reference zopiclone reduces delta waves/slow wave sleep (deep sleep). You disagree with this and feel zopiclone improves sleep architecture, if you have a reference feel free to add it. Your facts at the moment are original research. You are more than welcome to find reliable sources, per WP:MEDRS for anything that you want to add to the article. Wikipedia is not recommended for medical advice so you were not using wikipedia for what it is intended for and at your own risk. It is just an encyclopedia.

Eszopiclone is a relatively newly patented drug so the peer reviewed literature on it is not very extensive in comparison to the racemic zopiclone which has been on the market for decades, so is not a fair comparison.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was also surprised at the negative tone of much of the article. While the critical comments are generally well sourced, there will always be media and academic sources voicing criticism of any widely prescribed psychoactive drug, and balance is needed. Much of the article currently reads as if written by someone with an undisclosed personal or commercial agenda. --Ef80 (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has a strong bias against zopiclone, cherry picking negative references.

Disambiguation links

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)

Contraindications - uncited claim

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)

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)

I cannot say I have in hand a study which demonstrates this phenomenon but I know that it exists as described above. A U.S. Senator was caught driving while asleep one time and blamed it on the nonbenzos, I believe it's not an uncommon reaction. morsontologica (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

added reference not working?

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)

Stereochemistry

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)

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)

Dissimilarity to benzos

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)

I remember the trade journal prior to the release of this drug family. The articles pointed out that the 3 drugs hit fewer brain receptors than benzo-diazepines (2 receptors vs. 5). <unrelated> Current reports by users indicate that the members of this drug family have higher rates, and more significant episodes of retrograde amnesia than any benzo-diazepene . Pharmacologically and empirically, this appears highly unlikely. It is true, however, that in the case of this drug family, inadequate studies were ever undertaken that might provide insight into higher doses. The same lack of "higher" dose study also appears in the case of the melatonin-based drug.

I have had good luck in suggesting to patients taking an hypnotic, to read before sleep (and assiduously use a bookmark), and use the number of pages not remembered as a guideline for amnesia - I suggest this regardless of the hypnotic in use.

The initiating writer of this discussion defines a difference in sensory aspect between zopiclone and benzos: while I believe his assessment to be essentially correct, it is nonetheless necessary to define said effect as not provable. Indeed, every CNS depressant will share similarities, yet still have notable differences.

There are currently "forces" seeking to reduce or eliminate prescriptions for this family of drugs. This is unfortunate, and unsupportable. Failing to monitor any patient's progress with any drug will cause problems. This drug and its relatives are neither candy nor placebos; the prescriber must never eschew responsibility for monitoring ALL prescriptions. Additionally, the failure to test higher doses of these drugs, coupled with the failure to test medium and long-term use of hypnotics is irresponsible. Some sleep disorders can only be treated with long-term administration of hypnotics (political pressure against this fact and practice is unconscionable - yet always political, and never medical).Non-capricious (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias : the first half of this Zopiclone article is not written in a detached way

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)

REM-sleep

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)

Error in the first line of the article

"Zopiclone (brand name Zimovane in Europe and Imovane elsewhere)"

This is incorrect. The brand name for Zopiclone IS Imovane in Norway (a european country) and NOT Zimovane.

Deletion regarding schizophrenia

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zopiclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Glaring absence

"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)

This is a warzone

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)

Vandalism?

Resolved

 – Suspected vandalism has been corrected; see here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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 have since been corrected. ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 20:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No section about severe withdrawal?

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)

Scientific terminology

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)

Misleading statement about partial tolerance in Contraindications section

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)

Anxiety relief

I am prescribed zopiclone. It most certainly does provide relief from anxiety, so what's the deal with the new addition in the first description saying otherwise? Pikachu.447 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)