Talk:Ramelteon

Section 1

Can anyone find the ATC Code? I could not find this information from a Google Search nor from goverment websites (i.e. NIH, FDA). Yendor 07:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, did the manufacturer write this page?

I added a few words comparing melatonin to ramelteon. They are different molecules, but bind to about the same receptor sites. As far as I know, there has never been a head to head blind clinical trial comparing melatonin and ramelteon. I don't think the manufacturer would want that, because melatonin costs pennies on the dollar, compared to ramelteon. Bigvalleytim 07:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Should it be noted that ramelteon is only minimally effective compared to placebo? I've been told by a colleague it only adds 30 minutes of sleep on top of placebo. I have not seen the trials myself.

MT receptors

I added a short paragraph about the significance of the MT3 receptor -- or lack thereof. I don't want to bogart anybody's article. If you think my facts are wrong, please speak up. Bigvalleytim 05:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Only sleep aid with no chance of abuse?

I take issue with the following:

Ramelteon is the only sleep-aid that features no chance for abuse or dependence, and the withdrawal and rebound insomnia that is typical with other GABA modulators is not present in ramelteon.

It sounds like a sales pitch, and since two of the three sources for the article are the drug's commercial home page, and the third (independent) one says nothing about clinical trials, I can't see the justification for such a strong and unequivocal statement. Anchoress 12:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have altered the "Uses" section to read as follows -

Ramelteon has not been shown to produce dependence and has shown no potential for abuse, and the withdrawal and rebound insomnia that is typical with other GABA modulators is not present in ramelteon. It is currently the only non-scheduled prescription drug for the treatment of insomnia available in the United States.

Several studies apparently support ramelteon's lack of abuse potential or dependence liability, but a quick PubMed/Google Scholar search found no freely available ones for reference :) (except for this one, which is an animal study), and I am wary of citing articles before I've read them. Fvasconcellos 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great. Anchoress 01:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I used to work for the company...they tested it by giving it to drug addicts (along with other drugs). The addicts then gave a self-report of how much they would like "abuse" it or something like that.

Still in need of more critical perspective?

I know nothing about this drug, just looking it up because I saw it being advertised ad nauseum... While the above efforts helped, this page still seems very much like it's the company line. I encourage anyone who is familiar with pharmeceuticals and drug studies to write a less POVish article. Eeblet 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Which parts do you feel could be improved? Fvasconcellos 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope the clinical efficacy trial just posted helps you decide if this drug seems worthwhile to you. Personally, it doesn't look like it helps a whole lot.

Lincoln and Beaver?

They are in the commercials. Is this a reference to dreaming about money and sex?

This drug kept me AWAKE

A beaver? I thought it was a groundhog because it was a reference to Groundhog's Day with 6 more weeks of winter, or in this case, more sleep.

Not a hypnotic..?

Is this drug not, per definitionem a hypnotic? I didn't found it in the hypnotics list. Further, I think that it is way too early to state whether this drug is or is not addictive or abuse-prone. Remember, that every single hypnotic (class), beginnig after chloral hydrate (barbiturates in the early 1900's, methaqualone and glutethimide in the early 1950's, benzodiazepines in the late 1960's and early 1970's and, most recently, zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplone in the early-mid 1990's) were ad-boosted as the un-addictive, "of little abuse potential" hypnotics. It is not wise to assume an utterly novel hypnotic drug is "little or not at all addictive", or "of little abuse potential". Lets rather be reserved and a bit sceptical, until it is used widely for at last a couple of years.--84.163.84.223 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is by definition not a hypnotic in that it does not work on any receptor system or subsystem, enzymatic, or other biological process that produces a state referred to as hypnotic. It's not even remotely sedative. If you read the article and scientific literature and double blind studies on the substance, you will come to a conclusion that it has little or no abuse potential because it doesn't work on any reward system by any means. It has no withdrawal effects, either. Side by side comparisons of the side effects will also prove that it is only very slightly more subjectively present that placebo. It is not a hypnotic. It is very selective.Ccroberts^{( t · c · g )} 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramelteon is listed as a hypnotic by the National Sleep Foundation here: http://www.sleepfoundation.org/site/c.huIXKjM0IxF/b.2427755/apps/nl/content2.asp?content_id=%7BA32EA3FC-6C6A-4092-B13E-4B46547E2EBC%7D&notoc=1 it is also listed as a hypnotic here: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/rozerem.htm And here: http://uuhsc.utah.edu/pharmacy/bulletins/ramelteon.html And here: http://pharmacy.oregonstate.edu/drug_policy/pages/dur_board/newsletter/articles/volume8/DURV8I1.html And here: http://www.pbm.va.gov/monograph/Ramelteon.pdf

And lots of other places as well. Though this doesn't mean that it is in fact a hypnotic, this is a least evidence contrary to what ccroberts says.

Please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~).

FWIW, the manufacturer's own site calls it a hypnotic, do a Google for

hypnotic site:rozerem.com

and you'll see it mentioned twice. --CliffC 19:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also for what it's worth, a search for

groundhog OR beaver site:rozerem.com

shows that Abe's companion is a beaver; like someone who posted above, I've been thinking groundhog. --CliffC 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Recreational Use

Is this verifiable what-so-ever? Until someone digs something up, I'm taking it off. 70.209.143.100 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

MT3 Receptor

There is no mention of this receptor in the Melatonin receptor article. MrPMonday (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Adverse Effects / Poor effectiveness

There needs to be a section on adverse effect, like hyperprolactinaemia and cancer in animal studies. There is no mention of the negilible effect: it does only reduce time to sleep by 10 minutes! Source: Prescrire International Oct. 2008 vol 17 no 97 pg 183-186 --84.137.108.248 (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources missing or irrelevant

The paragraph entitled Drug Interactions is not referenced at all. In addition, under Sources and external links there is a medscape link relating to Midazolam: I looked up the full text of this article and could not find a single reference to Ramelteon or Rozerem. 121.220.130.33 (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no justification of claims that it "does not appear to speed the onset of sleep or the amount of sleep a person gets" in the cited article: Management of insomnia disorder, Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Wikiangelo (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Provided details on my talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

" FDA approved 07.04.05 , ..."

Hmmm, 7th of April or 4th of July. This being the USA, I assume the FDA takes the 4th of July off, so they approved the drug in April 2005? (Gosh, was it that long ago?) One has to be a detective to figure out dates written like that. Except for today, of course! {smile} --Hordaland (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

addiction risk

What's the addiction and abuse risk of this substance A8v (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)