![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 9 of 9. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fachad on December 12, 2004, at 14:34:07
Heard these are all on their way:
Ambien SR
Estorra
generic SonataAnyone know when these meds are going to be in the pharmacy?
Posted by jrbecker on December 13, 2004, at 12:12:48
In reply to Estorra, AmbienSR, generic Sonata available yet?, posted by fachad on December 12, 2004, at 14:34:07
estorra-
the PDUFA date is wed (dec 15th). the fda will have to provide some sort of response before then. if approval goes through, then look for a 1-2 month roll-out timeframe.http://www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/2004/12/02/1202automarketscan08.html
ambien CR - the company doesn't expect market launch until mid-2005 so I wouldn't expect it before then.sonata
er, not sure about the generic progress -- even though a patent expires, the company can hold up potential generic competitors for years in the courts. as for the extended-release version by the original maker -- King pharmaceuticals -- it wont be available for at least a year or two (phase ii).other hopeful approvals...indiplon IR/MR and Ramelteon also have potential to reach the shelf sometime in 2005.
http://www.neurotransmitter.net/newdrugs.html
JB
> Heard these are all on their way:
>
> Ambien SR
> Estorra
> generic Sonata
>
> Anyone know when these meds are going to be in the pharmacy?
>
>
Posted by jrbecker on December 16, 2004, at 11:40:57
In reply to Re: Estorra, AmbienSR, generic Sonata available yet? » fachad, posted by jrbecker on December 13, 2004, at 12:12:48
Lunesta (formerly known as Estorra) was approved today. Launch is expected in early January.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=90106&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=655288&highlight=
Posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 12:01:10
In reply to Lunesta (formerly known as Estorra) is approved, posted by jrbecker on December 16, 2004, at 11:40:57
Hello Mr. Becker!
Thank you for keeping us up to date.
Eszopiclone isn't (yet) available in the UK but zopiclone has been widely prescribed for many years. Zopiclone is approved for short term use only but is commonly used for many months at a time. Both abuse and physical dependence have been reported. The question is, will eszopiclone prove to have any significant advantages over zopiclone? ....or it is just hype! I imagine the approval for longer-term use will make it popular.
Regards,
Ed.
Posted by jrbecker on December 16, 2004, at 14:09:24
In reply to Re: Eszopiclone » jrbecker, posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 12:01:10
good question Ed. The company postulates that due to Eszoplicone being a stereoselective (S) isomer of the zopliclone molecule, it is associated with greater efficacy and less side effects.
Of course, we've seen this before in the Lexapro/Celexa debacle.
However, from what I've read, eszopiclone IS a more potent and pharmacologically superior form of the drug. But we will have to separate fact from spin once the drug hits the market.
The following might provide some more background...
http://www.trends-in-medicine.com/June2003/Sleep063p.pdf
http://www.trends-in-medicine.com/Feb2003/Insomnia023p.pdf
Posted by FredPotter on December 16, 2004, at 14:32:40
In reply to Re: Eszopiclone » ed_uk, posted by jrbecker on December 16, 2004, at 14:09:24
Here is my experience for what it's worth. I took Zopiclone every night for 3 years. For much of the final year I fought off drowsiness during the day. Only on giving it up do I realise the probable culprit was Z. I figure the half-life of 5 hours caused accumulation over time, particularly as I was taking 15 mg and the quoted half-life is for 7.5 mg. Whether this would happen with the new drug I don't know
Posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 15:15:54
In reply to Re: Eszopiclone » ed_uk, posted by jrbecker on December 16, 2004, at 14:09:24
Hi JR!! :-)
Thank you very much for providing the link to the articles.
>The company postulates that due to Eszoplicone being a stereoselective (S) isomer of the zopliclone molecule, it is associated with greater efficacy and less side effects.
Zopiclone (Zimovane in UK) is a racemate, as a result it consists of 50% eszopiclone and 50% R-Zopiclone. Since R-Zopiclone is thought to be virtually inert, there doesn't seem to be any theory to support the manufacturer's claim that eszopiclone would cause any less side effects or be any more effective than zopiclone (which, I must add, I available as a nice cheap generic!!)
>eszopiclone IS more potent
It certainly is, but potency is not synonymous with efficacy. The fact that it is more potent simply means that a smaller dose will be needed to obtain the same effect.... this tells us nothing about the efficacy or toxicity of the drug. Paroxetine is a much more potent SSRI that sertraline yet it is no more effective, nor is it better tolerated. Hydromorphone is more potent mu-agonist than morphine but its efficacy and toxicity are virtually the same.
Sepracor, of course, are desperate for us to believe that a drug that can be given at a lower dose must be better... they are trying to fool the world!! Only if R-Zopiclone was proven to be toxic or detrimental to the therapeutic efficacy of eszopiclone would Lunesta have any advantage over the racemate RS-zopiclone (Zimovane).
As far as I know zopiclone is not available in the US. As a result, eszopiclone will be a potentially useful addition to your pharmacopoeia. Unfortunately, if it is at some point introduced into the UK, it won't be so useful to us :-(
Generic zopiclone in the UK...
Tablets, zopiclone 3.75 mg, net price 28-tab pack = £3.07; 7.5 mg, 28-tab pack = £4.34.
So, zopiclone 3.75 mg contain 1.875 mg eszopiclone.... and zopiclone 7.5 mg tablets contain 3.75 mg eszopiclone. I bet the new Lunesta tablets are more expensive!!
Kind Regards,
Ed.
Posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 15:28:23
In reply to Re: Eszopiclone, posted by FredPotter on December 16, 2004, at 14:32:40
>Here is my experience for what it's worth. I took Zopiclone every night for 3 years. For much of the final year I fought off drowsiness during the day. Only on giving it up do I realise the probable culprit was Z. I figure the half-life of 5 hours caused accumulation over time, particularly as I was taking 15 mg and the quoted half-life is for 7.5 mg. Whether this would happen with the new drug I don't know
Hi Fred,It wouldn't have been that the drug accumulated, the day time drowsiness occurs because the drug hasn't worn off by the time you get up. Avoid Lunesta, it would almost certainly have the same effect.
Ed.
Posted by SandyWeb on December 16, 2004, at 16:15:48
In reply to Re: Eszopiclone versus Zopiclone.... To J.R.Becker, posted by ed_uk on December 16, 2004, at 15:15:54
I live in Canada, and Zopiclone is available to us here.
I found that it did absolutely nothing. It did not make me sleepy in the least (even at a high dose). My daughter had the same experience.
With my body chemistry, Zopiclone is a waste of money as a sleeping aid.
But I've heard that it works wonderfully for most people.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.