Talk:Zaleplon

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Zaleplon.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

The wording in this in very similar to: [1]

Added photo

Added photo of Sonata brand Zaleplon (10mg). This.machinery 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinogenicity

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zolpidem#Carcinogenicity Paul Fisher (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, Bias, Promotion

Zaleplon is one of few sleep medications which have been found to not cause an increase in road traffic accidents, thus demonstrating a much higher safety profile than many other hypnotics currently on the market.

I'm really not liking that sentence, especially as the 2nd one in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.241.242 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Literaturegeek's edits seem very non-NPOV. I changed some wording.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.241.242 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all that I was doing was reporting what the literature said so it is false to say I am not NPOV by reporting a beneficial findings, quite the opposite. I cannot help it that you do not like the findings of the study, if you are aware of a study which contradicts the citations you are welcome to add it. The reference that you used was not on road traffic accidents but was on side effects, so it was not relevant to cast doubt on those two studies. I have left it in the lead but made it a seperate sentence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the reason for my edits were because a few sentences in the article gave the impression that one particular variety of a highly debatable class of drugs was superior to others. It triggered my 'bias' flag. I took a look at many of your other contributions to wiki, and found absolutely zero evidence to suggest that your motives are anything other than what you claim. It seems to me to be nothing more than a random case of slightly sloppy verbiage from an otherwise valuable contributor. You bring a lot of great, and relevant, references to the articles you edit. Just make sure you're not unintentionally using those references to provide subjective opinion, especially for something like z-drugs where almost all of the published literature has been funded by the manufacturers themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.241.242 (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually added into wikipedia articles the harmful and adverse effects of sedative-hypnotics. I have been accused before of adding biased information against these drugs so I guess now I have been accused of both now, promoting the drugs and demoting the drugs, LOL. I appreciate your feedback though and I am aware of the controversy of biased publications in the peer reviewed literature. The thing though is that zaleplon has an ultra short half-life so I think the claim that zaleplon is not associated or has a significantly reduced association with road traffic accidents makes sense and is a result one would expect. It's half life is only 1 hour or so. That is not to say that zaleplon is not association with confusion, memory problems, drug abuse, tolerance, rebound effects and so forth. It has similar risks to other Z drugs and few advantages over the benzodiazepines. If you have references feel free to edit the wikipedia articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the lead/intro is now more neutral now. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the peer-reviewed literature consistent that this compound is not addictive? This assertion is inconsistent with Pfizer's own description of the drug, which expressly states that the addictive tendencies are unquantified and that other sleep-inducing drugs have been associated with dependence. See p. 17-18 of this document: http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=710. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.195.70 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaleplon has been discontinued by the NHS

I have deleted this sentence from the introduction as it is misleading and basically meaningless. The UK NHS is not in the business of 'supplying' pharmaceutical products and therefore cannot 'discontinue' them. The NHS is a buyer of pharmaceutical products and may choose whether or not to fund/buy them (usually according to guidance from NICE) but that's not the same as supplying or discontinuing them. Additionally, current NICE guidance allows for the prescribing of zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplon on the NHS, but recommends doctors prescribe the cheapest, which is presumably why zopiclone is overwhelmingly used in this class.--Pharmagiles (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Z-drug make severe withdrawal

As they act similar to Benzodiazepines, a black box label warning / standard section should be put on any articl, as those drug can produce the most horrific withdrawals possible that last for month and have high suicide rates... See Ashton manual / Benzobuddies and similar references.