Hypnotics and behavior

Insomnia pharmacotherapy

The benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) a melatonin receptor agonist and a histamine antagonist have all been approved as hypnotics. Beyond their differing mechanisms of action, they have differences in pharmacokinetics, and among the BzRAs differences in receptor subtype affinity and formulations, which provides the physician with broad options for tailoring therapy to each patient's specific needs. Consistent with their specific pharmacokinetics and formulations, these Food and Drug Administration-approved hypnotics have been shown to improve sleep with no evidence of tolerance development in long-term use. In addition, emerging data indicate these drugs also improve aspects of daytime function. Their side effects are either associated with the direct sedating effects of the drugs, doses greater than clinical doses, or a combination with alcohol or other sedating drugs. Anxiolytic BzRAs, sedating antidepressants and antipsychotics have been used off-label as hypnotics. However, in the absence of information regarding their dose range for efficacy and safety, their use as hypnotics is ill-advised.

Residual effects of hypnotics: epidemiology and clinical implications

The risk of "hangover" effects, e.g. residual daytime sleepiness and impairment of psychomotor and cognitive functioning the day after bedtime administration, is one of the main problems associated with the use of hypnotics. However, the severity and duration of these effects varies considerably between hypnotics and is strongly dependent on the dose administered. This article reviews epidemiological evidence on the effect of hypnotics on patients' risk for accidents such as traffic accidents, falls and hip fractures (i.e. end-points for residual effects). Information on the duration and severity of residual effects of 11 hypnotics (flunitrazepam, flurazepam, loprazolam, lormetazepam, midazolam, nitrazepam, temazepam, triazolam, zaleplon, zolpidem and zopiclone) was derived from expert ratings, a meta-analysis and actual driving studies. Epidemiological studies show that the risks of an accident increase with increasing half-life of the hypnotic, but that the use of hypnotics with a short half-life, such as triazolam, zopiclone and zolpidem, can also be associated with increased risks. A summary of results from experimental studies should enable prescribing clinicians to compare residual effects of the various hypnotics at different doses and select the one considered most favourable in this respect for the individual patient. This information should also enable them to inform patients more adequately about the likelihood and duration of residual effects of a specific hypnotic dose.

Effects on postural oscillation and memory functions of a single dose of zolpidem 5 mg, zopiclone 3.75 mg and lormetazepam 1 mg in elderly healthy subjects. A randomized, cross-over, double-blind study versus placebo

OBJECTIVE

In elderly patients, both falls and impaired memory are considerable medical problems. Hypnotics, which are frequently administered to this patient group for the treatment of insomnia, should ideally not impair equilibrium or memory functions. This double-blind, randomised, four-way, cross-over study investigated the effects of frequently prescribed hypnotics from different classes on postural oscillation and memory under real life conditions. Zolpidem 5 mg, zopiclone 3.75 mg, lormetazepam 1 mg (i.e. usual starting doses in elderly) or placebo were administered at night to 48 healthy elderly volunteers aged 65 years or more. The study included four treatment periods separated by wash-out periods of at least 1 week.

METHODS

Psychomotor tests up to 9 h or 10 h after drug intake included, for attention and body sway, clinical stabilometric platform (CSP) tests, simple reaction time (SRT), and the critical tracking test (CTT); for memory, the learning memory tasks (LMT) and the Sternberg memory scanning test (mean reaction time [MRT] and percentage of correct answers) were used. For subjective sleep evaluation the Leeds sleep evaluation questionnaire (LSEQ) and for sedation a visual analogue scale (VAS) were used. For safety evaluations, adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate that compared with placebo, the active drugs increased body sway (area eyes open and closed in the CSP); however, this effect disappeared after 5 h with zolpidem, while it disappeared only after 8 h with lormetazepam and zopiclone. All three drugs did not affect attention assessed by the SRT and CTT. Concerning memory, Sternberg MRT at 9 h was not significantly different up to 5 digits for all groups in comparison with placebo, while for 6 digits it was significantly increased with lormetazepam and zopiclone. In the LMT, an impairment of performance was observed with lormetazepam relative to both zolpidem and placebo.

CONCLUSION

The safest compared drug with regard to body sway was zolpidem, because of its short-lasting effect. In addition, zolpidem did not show any significant effect on memory functions, in the present dose comparison.

Hypnotics: an update

This update reviews recent developments and advances in the therapeutic and side-effect profile of the benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), the generally accepted drug class of choice for the symptomatic treatment of insomnia. All the approved BZRAs, depending on their pharmacokinetic profile, improve and maintain sleep. The major recent advance is in the enhanced diversity of the pharmacokinetic profiles of these drugs, and thus in the flexibility available to the clinician in treatment strategy. Also, during the past decade the nature and significance of the side effects associated with the BZRAs and their determinants, dose and half-life, have been identified and clarified. The important remaining question is whether, and how, the efficacy and safety of the BZRAs change with chronic use.

Alertness and memory after sleep deprivation and diazepam intake

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) give rise to memory impairments. It has been questioned whether or not these impairments are related to the drug's sedative, alertness-reducing effects. Therefore, in this study, alertness was reduced in healthy subjects both pharmacologically (15 mg diazepam) and non-pharmacologically (24-h sleep deprivation, SD) in order to assess whether these manipulations both gave rise to memory impairments. Twelve subjects were tested using a repeated measures cross-over design. Drug administration was placebo-controlled and double-blind. A subjective alertness reduction was established after diazepam intake and even more after SD. Additionally, performance-disruptive effects were found on psychomotor tasks after both SD and liazepam intake. However, only diazepam, and not SD, impaired delayed recall of a word list and recall of paired associates. Thus a reduction in alertness, i.e. sedation, cannot fully account for BZD-induced memory impairments.

Sedative, memory, and performance effects of hypnotics

The sedative, amnestic, and performance disruptive effects of benzodiazepine (Bz) receptor selective and non-selective hypnotics were studied in 23 healthy, normal subjects, aged 26.8 +/- 1.0 years. Triazolam (0.25 and 0.50 mg), zolpidem (10 and 20 mg) and placebo were administered, double-blind, at bedtime in a repeated measures design. During an awakening 90 min later (at approximate peak concentration of each drug) a 30-min performance battery which included memory, vigilance, and psychomotor tasks was completed. Each drug and dose impaired memory (both immediate and delayed), vigilance, and psychomotor performance relative to placebo. Among active drugs impairment was greatest with zolpidem 20 mg, next triazolam 0.50 mg, then zolpidem 10 mg, and finally triazolam 0.25 mg. Next morning delayed recall was also impaired by all drugs and doses (i.e. anterograde amnesia). The amnestic and performance-disruptive effects paralleled the relative hypnotic effects of the drugs and doses. No receptor selectivity in these pharmacodynamic effects was observed.

Abuse liability of alprazolam relative to other commonly used benzodiazepines: a review

Nonhuman and human studies comparing the abuse liability of alprazolam to other commonly used benzodiazepines are reviewed. These studies are reviewed to determine to what extent prospective, controlled, experimental studies support opinions that alprazolam's abuse liability is greater than that of other commonly used benzodiazepines. Studies comparing the self-administration of alprazolam, the discriminative stimulus effects of alprazolam, self-reported effects of alprazolam, physiological dependence on alprazolam, and adverse effects of alprazolam relative to other benzodiazepines are reviewed. Overall, the experimental literature does not support the widely held belief that alprazolam's abuse liability is greater than that of other benzodiazepines, but much more research is needed. Such research should focus explicitly on alprazolam's reinforcing effects, and the nature and severity of the discontinuation syndrome associated with its long-term use. Important issues such as selection of an appropriate comparison drug, selection of an appropriate population, dosing regimen and test doses need to be considered in future studies.

Comparative effects of pravastatin and lovastatin on nighttime sleep and daytime performance

Pravastatin and lovastatin, two HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors with similar cholesterol-lowering effects, differ in their lipid solubility. The hydrophilic characteristics of pravastatin may explain why the drug has not been detected in cerebrospinal fluid. On the other hand, lovastatin, a lipophilic compound, has been detected in the cerebrospinal fluid. Previous reports have suggested that lovastatin administration may be associated with insomnia, which reflects an action in the central nervous system. The effects of the two drugs on nocturnal sleep and day-time performance in young, healthy men have been assessed in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Computer-based performance tests were administered on two consecutive days before drug administration and at the end of a 3-week active drug or placebo treatment period. Results from both sites were combined for analysis. Neither pravastatin nor lovastatin significantly affected nocturnal sleep or daytime sleepiness in this study population, but lovastatin significantly affected daytime performance. In subjects treated with lovastatin, the results showed that two measures of performance, divided attention (p less than 0.05) and vigilance (p less than 0.01), worsened significantly from baseline as did global performance (p less than 0.01). Performance was not affected in the pravastatin and placebo groups. These results provide preliminary evidence of an adverse effect of lovastatin on daytime performance.