Talk:Nonbenzodiazepine

Name change to "Benzodiazepine-like" or to "Benzodiazepine receptor agonist"

"Nonbenzodiazepine" is misleading, as these drugs act on the benzodiazepine receptor and have similar effects/risks as the benzodiazepines, although they do have a different chemical structure from the benzodiazepines. "Nonbenzodiazepine" is confusing, as sleep medications like melatonin which are truly different from the benzodiazepines are not included among the nonbenzodiazepines.

"Benzodiazepine-like" is a widely used alternative term. It is descriptive and neutral. Tova Hella (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is misleading, but unfortunately it is the "official" name of this group of compounds. I think that the article does however, describe to the reader the similarities of the pharmacodynamic actions of these drugs. The lead sentence does refer to these drugs as "benzodiazepine-like". :) See WP:COMMONNAME as well for chosing article names.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reference that nonbenzodiazepine is the "official" name? Outside of industry-sponsored sources? In all English speaking countries? Benzodiazepine-like is also widely used.

The detailed product information sheet on Zolpidem from the UK electronic Medicines Compendium (eMC) refers eight times to "Benzodiazepines or benzodiazepine-like agents such as zolpidem" and zero times to "nonbenzodiazepine" or "non-benzodiazepine". [1]

We agree that nonbenzodiazepine is misleading. Benzodiazepine-like is the more accurate term.

Another alternative name used in "official" sources is Benzodiazepine Receptor Agonists (BzRA), which would include benzodiazepines. Note, we would not have to discuss benzodiazepines in detail, we could link to the benzodiazepine main page. This may be a more accurate term for the drugs currently listed, which includes the Z-drugs and an assortment of other benzodiazepine receptor agonists with various properties. Information specific to the Z-drugs might then be moved to the Z-drugs page.

For comparison and inspiration, consider hallucinogen, this redirects to Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants because wiki editors agreed that hallucinogen is misleading and inaccurate even though it is very widely used. Tova Hella (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well here is a reference where the World Health Organisation refers to these drugs as nonbenzodiazepines.[2] If you go to pubmed and search in quotes, "nonbenzodiazepine" as well as "non-benzodiazepine" and then search "benzodiazepine like" you will see that nonbenzodiazepine is the WP:COMMONNAME used and not "benzodiazepine like".

That is a interesting reference that you found; I do not believe that on its own it is enough to trump WP:COMMONNAME but why not add it to the article to reference the statement "benzodiazepine like"? Benzodiazepine receptor agonists is worth considering though. The article needs a few references discussing nonbenzodiazepines being benzodiazepine receptor agonists, preferably peer reviewed though before considering this move which may still end up being opposed by other editors.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reference is to a patent application, not the WHO. Clearly the pharmaceutical industry prefers the term non-benzodiazepine, but that doesn't automatically mean that wikipedia has to use that term. Pubmed has 228 references for "benzodiazepine-like" and 567 for "non-benzodiazepine" or "nonbenzodiazepine." That is pretty close, especially considering that many of the publications using nonbenzodiazepine were likely sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (however, not all these references are relevant to the drugs listed here). The UK electronic Medicines Compendium (cited above) uses benzodiazepine-like for all of these drugs, not just zolpidem, thus benzodiazepine-like appears to be the approved name in the UK.

Non-benzodiazepine is so misleading. It would be like calling fentanyl a "non-opiate" instead of a "synthetic opioid".

I am leaning more toward Benzodiazepine receptor agonist, since that is the common feature of the various drugs listed here. The term "nonbenzodiazepine" only makes sense once the topic is already established as benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRA). The "nonbenzodiazepines" are simply benzodiazepine receptor agonists which do not contain the benzodiazepine ring in their chemical structure. There is no natural category of "nonbenzodiazepines". It makes more sense to discuss the benzodiazepines and other benzodiazepine receptor agonists together on one wiki page (See opioid as an example page - the mu opioid receptor agonists).

As mentioned above, BzRA is widely used. Here is an argument from a scientific publication in favor or BzRA (emphasis added): .

Nomenclature – a way of creating misperception: The naming of drugs that bind to the benzodiazepine site and allosterically modulate GABAA receptor function has been used in an attempt to dissociate the newer generation of compounds from the older ‘less-selective’ drugs and their associated adverse effects. This classification as ‘non-benzodiazepines’ (as the structures of these compounds do not contain the strict benzodiazepine ring) has resulted in the erroneous and misleading perception that these agents constitute a wholly different class of drugs. Because the interaction at the benzodiazepine binding site is common, we might expect similar adverse effects, unless either robust subtype selectivity in vivo exists or the adverse effects are related to structure-dependent interaction of the older benzodiazepines with other classes of receptors. Therefore, it may be more useful to refer to all of these compounds as benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs). (Ebert, B.; Wafford, K. (2006). "Benzodiazepine receptor agonists and insomnia: is subtype selectivity lost in translation?". Drug Discovery Today: Therapeutic Strategies. 3 (4): 547. doi:10.1016/j.ddstr.2006.11.008.)

Tova Hella (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Benzodiazepine-like" is not a drug class in the UK, it is a descriptive term based on its pharmacological actions. Drug articles are written based on their pharmacological drug classification/family/group etc. I still am unsure, have you considered posting to the talk page of [[3]] to get more consensus? I feel that we need to get more heads thinking on this. In the mean time, I would support adding in "benzodiazepine like" and "benzodiazepine receptor agonists" to the lead sentence and bolding the term in the lead sentence of the article. I am on the fence about the issue, you could be WP:BOLD and just move the article to benzodiazepine receptor agonist. You know how to move, an article? You don't copy and paste it, or else we lose the edit history; there is a move button on the article, you need to move the talk page as well. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I somehow missed it even though it is on my watch list.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Slight miscategorization

It appears that two drugs that are placed into the pyrazolopyrimidine section in this article are misplaced. Both panadiplon and taniplon do not actually have the same skeletal structure as the rest of the pyrazolopyrimidines (panadiplon has an imidazopyrazine core and taniplon has an imidazopyrimidine core, both have an oxadiazole moiety attached). As well, some of the drugs listed in the cyclopyrrolone class do not appear to have that structure (pagoclone and pazinaclone are both missing the nitrogens in the 6-membered ring, and suproclone and suriclone have sulfurs in place of those nitrogens), though all of them appear to be classified as cyclopyrrolones despite the discrepancy in structure. I'm not sure if this is anything that should in fact be changed (e.g. if the compounds in question should be moved to the "other" section) but I felt it noteworthy enough to mention here. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)