Eszopiclone Treatment for Insomnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to compare the treatment effect size of eszopiclone 3 mg for insomnia in patients with a diagnosis of primary insomnia and in several of the psychiatric and medical conditions that are most commonly comorbid with insomnia. METHOD: Data were analyzed from 5 large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of adult outpatients of at least 1 month duration published between 2006 and 2009. Diary-derived indices of sleep and daytime functioning and the Insomnia Severity Index were compared for patients with primary insomnia (DSM-IV-TR criteria, n = 828) and for those with insomnia comorbid with major depressive disorder (MDD, DSM-IV-TR criteria, n = 545), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD, DSM-IV-TR criteria, n = 595), perimenopause/postmenopause (Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop criteria, n = 410), and rheumatoid arthritis (American College of Rheumatology criteria, n = 153). Cohen d effect sizes were calculated for each individual study as the between-treatment difference score divided by the pooled standard deviation. RESULTS: Effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.69 (small-medium) as early as week 1 and were maintained at 0.26-0.63 at week 4 for sleep latency, wake time after sleep onset, and total sleep time. Sleep latency and total sleep time effect sizes increased from week 1 to week 4 in the primary insomnia group. At week 4, effect sizes on all 3 parameters and the Insomnia Severity Index tended to be highest for the primary insomnia patients and tended to be lowest for patients with comorbid GAD and MDD. The effect sizes for daytime functioning were small for all insomnia patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Eszopiclone 3 mg is an effective treatment for insomnia across 5 clinically diverse patient populations; however, magnitude of effect is mediated by underlying comorbidity and their treatments, with largest measures of effect seen in primary insomnia and lowest in MDD and GAD. These consistent results, and the fact that clinical trials were conducted in patients being treated as appropriate for their comorbid clinical conditions, support the results' real-world generalizability and utility to clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".