Adverse effects of temazepam in older adults with chronic insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine-hypnotics are frequently used for treating insomnia in older adults; however, there is little information about adverse effects associated with their usage over several weeks, particularly in this segment of the population. OBJECTIVE: This study reports on the incidence of adverse effects of temazepam in older adults with chronic insomnia and examines whether the addition of cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) is associated with less drug used and fewer adverse effects. METHOD: Sixty patients with chronic and primary insomnia were randomized to temazepam (n = 20), placebo (n = 20) or temazepam plus CBT (n = 20). Data from the physicians' weekly assessments and patients' sleep diaries were used to evaluate adverse effects, the dose (7.5-30 mg) at which they occurred, and drug use patterns over the 8-week course of treatment. RESULTS: The incidence of adverse effects was infrequent, as shown by the low percentages of complaints reported by patients in the temazepam (7.8%), placebo (10.8%) and combination groups (8.3%). The severity of adverse events was mild and decreased over the course of treatment. The maximum dose was reached by 10 patients receiving temazepam, 14 placebo and 7 in the combined treatment. The average nightly dosage used was 20 mg for both the temazepam and placebo groups and 16 mg for the combined condition. Patients receiving temazepam plus CBT used less drugs, with approximately the same incidence of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Temazepam is a safe hypnotic for use by older adults over an 8-week treatment period. There are few adverse effects and behavioural tolerance to those effects develop over time. The addition of cognitive-behavioural intervention reduced both the amount of medication used and the incidence of adverse effects, with comparable sleep improvements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".