Search

In recent years, zolpidem has been the subject of numerous reports of misuse, abuse and dependence. In view of these risks, the French drug agency decreed the implementation of secure prescription pads in April, 2017. The objective of this study was to characterize the impact of this regulatory change on the patterns of zolpidem use.We included patients with at least one reimbursement for zolpidem before and/or after the regulatory change using a sample of the French health insurance database. For each period, we identified profiles of users using a latent class analysis (LCA).In total, 15,550 zolpidem users were identified before the measure and 8,301 after the measure. We identified the same three profiles of zolpidem users before and after the measure: non-problematic users (the most prevalent), users whose drug prescriptions suggest psychiatric disorder and potential problematic users. The profile of potential problematic users was similar after the regulatory change but represented a lower absolute number of patients.In conclusion, the regulatory change had a positive impact on the patterns of zolpidem use, but the impact should be reevaluated, because withdrawal can take a long time, especially in long-term users.The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov under the reference number NCT03584542.

International audience; INTRODUCTION: In France, an addictovigilance network is responsible for evaluating drug dependence, by drawing on pharmacoepidemiological studies, clinical studies and by assessing healthcare professionals' reports on problematic consumption. METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine whether zolpidem and zopiclone have different dependence profiles, based on healthcare professionals' reports, and to identify various consumer dependence profiles among zolpidem users and among zopiclone users. Dependence in reports was assessed using the EGAP scale; a scale developed using the DSM diagnostic dependence criteria. RESULTS: The comparison of dependence profiles for zolpidem and zopiclone showed differences both in total EGAP score and EGAP item positivity. The descriptive analysis showed that EGAP scores were higher for zolpidem than for zopiclone, suggesting more severe problematic consumption with zolpidem. For zolpidem 2 subpopulations of consumers were identified, with one subpopulation's consumption being more severe than the other, with a significantly higher total EGAP score and more harmful consequences. No subpopulation was highlighted for zopiclone. CONCLUSION: These results were in favour of a higher prevalence of physical and compulsive signs of dependence and of harmful consequences of dependence, with zolpidem than with zopiclone.