Low-Dose Sublingual Zolpidem Tartrate is Associated with Dose-Related Improvement in Sleep Onset and Duration in Insomnia Characterized by Middle-of-the-Night (MOTN) Awakenings

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose, sublingual zolpidem tartrate when taken during a scheduled middle-of-the-night (MOTN) awakening in subjects with insomnia characterized by difficulty returning to sleep following MOTN awakenings. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover study. METHODS: Each treatment period consisted of 2 consecutive nights of dosing separated by a washout of 5 to 12 days. Subjects were awakened 4 h after lights out, dosed with sublingual zolpidem tartrate (3.5 mg or 1.75 mg) or placebo, kept awake for 30 min, and then returned to bed for an additional 4 h. Sleep parameters were assessed by polysomnography (PSG) and post-sleep questionnaires. SETTING: Five sleep laboratories. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (24 males, 58 females, mean age 45.9 y) with a diagnosis of DSM-IV primary insomnia and a history of prolonged MOTN awakenings. Baseline difficulties with MOTN awakenings were confirmed by a 10-day screening sleep diary and PSG screening. RESULTS: Low-dose sublingual zolpidem tartrate demonstrated significant dose-related decreases in latency to persistent sleep and total sleep time (P < 0.001) compared to placebo after MOTN dosing. All subject reports paralleled PSG observations. Neither dose showed next-morning impairment on the DSST or ratings of sleepiness. The 3.5-mg dose produced improvements in reports of sleep quality (P < 0.001), ability to function, and level of refreshed sleep (P < 0.05 for both dosages) compared to placebo. Sublingual zolpidem tartrate lozenges were generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose sublingual zolpidem tartrate may be suitable for treatment of patients who have difficulty resuming sleep after MOTN awakenings.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 56 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.