Cited by 77Sleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchCircadian rhythm and melatonin

Continuous versus non-nightly use of zolpidem in chronic insomnia: results of a large-scale, double-blind, randomized, outpatient study

Hajak, G., Cluydts, R., Declerck, A., Estivill, S. Eduard, Middleton, A., Sonka, K., Unden, M.·2002·International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

New treatment strategies are encouraged in insomnia and, in particular, discontinuous treatment. The aim of this double-blind study was to compare, in a large primary care population of chronic insomniacs (> 4 weeks duration) the efficacy and safety of zolpidem 10 mg 5 nights/week and placebo 2 nights/week, to that of nightly zolpidem. Seven hundred and eighty-nine drug-free insomniacs, with a Total Sleep Time (TST) of 3-6 h/night were enrolled in seven European countries. After a placebo run-in period, treatment lasted 14 days. The primary criterion was the Clinical Global Impression improvement score (CGI-II) which showed that 65.2% of patients in the continuous and 58.6% in the discontinuous groups were rated 'much' or 'very much' improved. Even though the non-inferiority test did not show the equivalence of both regimens, the difference of 7% in responder rates does not appear to be clinically relevant. Other sleep parameters such as TST, number of nocturnal awakenings and Quality of Life scales showed marked, not significantly different, improvements in both groups. Both regimens were well tolerated and no adverse event which could be related to non-treatment nights was reported in the discontinuous group. Non-nightly zolpidem appears to be a feasible and safe additional option for the management of chronic insomnia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004850-200201000-00002

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hajak, G., Cluydts, R., Declerck, A., Estivill, S. E., Middleton, A., Sonka, K., & Unden, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Regensburg (DE)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
  • Kempenhaeghe (NL)
  • Fowey Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Hajak, G.
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2002-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
9-17
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032887698
Cited by
77
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Regensburg Publication Server (University of Regensburg) (acceptedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Sanofi
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
Keywords
zolpidem, chronic insomnia, hypnotic efficacy, drug safety, total sleep time, nocturnal awakenings, quality of life, primary care patients, non-inferiority
MeSH terms
Zolpidem, Adolescent, Adult, Chronic Disease, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Pyridines, Quality of Life, Retrospective Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review