Sleeping pills may be as dangerous as smoking cigarettes, says lead author of new rep

[slimvictor]

The study, published in the journal BMJ Open, analysed 10,500 people taking a wide-range of sleeping pills, including tamazepam and diazepam. They compared people taking sleeping tablets with those who were not using the drugs but had a similar lifestyle and health conditions.

People taking higher doses of tamazepam pills, which were dispensed 2.8m times in England in 2010, were six times more likely to die in the next two-and-a-half years.

For the drug zolpidem, which was prescribed 733,000 times in England in 2010, the risk of death was 5.7 times higher for those taking them most frequently.

The drug zopiclone, which was prescribed 5.3million times in England in 2010, was included in the full analysis but not calculated separately.

Lead author Dr Daniel Kripke, of the Scripps Clinic, wrote in the British Medical Journal Open: "The meagre benefits of hypnotics [sleeping pills], as critically reviewed by groups without financial interest, would not justify substantial risks.


cont at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...igarettes-says-lead-author-of-new-report.html

 

[23536]

I wonder why they're dying.

A consensus is developing that cognitive-behavioural therapy of chronic insomnia may be more successful than hypnotics.

I don't know about this. If I complain to a doctor of insomnia and the doctor refers me to a psychotherapist, I will find another doctor.

Also, the word is BEHAVIOR, not BEHAVIOUR. Cut it out.

 

[Venrak]

^ I believe it's behaviour. Silly Americans

 

[poledriver]

Yeah it is BEHAVIOUR here anyway lol. color, colour, humor or humour etc.

 

[sekio]

This was discussed on Slashdot, they pointed out something rather interesting... correlation is not causation!

... this is like comparing the death rates of people taking heart medications versus people who don't and then claiming the medications are killing the folks when it could be that heart disease is what is killing them and the pills are not 100% effective at all times to deal with the problem.

Also, it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself, so comparing the death rates of people with sleep issues who did and who did not take medications may actually show that not taking sleeping pills might kill you if you have insomnia, which is the exact opposite of what the headline is claiming.

Seems to me it's just more antidrug sensationalism.

 

[scureto1]

who were not using the drugs but had a similar lifestyle and health conditions.

They call it a control group. Although it doesn't entirely remove the "correlation is not causation" problem, it certainly helps mitigate it a lot. Unfortunately, they always break down the results into over-simplified, bite-sized chunks for the average reader with things like "were six times more likely to die in the next two-and-a-half years." A statement like that is only slightly better than meaningless without knowing how they acquired, arranged, and analyzed their data.

 

[EndlessSummer]

This was discussed on Slashdot, they pointed out something rather interesting... correlation is not causation!

Seems to me it's just more antidrug sensationalism.

Funny, I was reading the same article on Slashdot hoping for some more seasoned analysis of the study as opposed to the simple rehashing the news aggregators gave as "500,000 Deaths Linked to Sleep Meds" and "Sleeping Pills Linked to Death, Cancer."

As your prototypical concerned poly-drug abuser who uses benzos as a foundation for many social occasions and other drug experiences, this study concerned me at first. Now I'm kind of like "eh."

While important not to discount studies like this, it definitely, definitely is a stretch to claim causation due to several facts that I could find even at this brief post-analysis stage. So let me break down several problems for other concerned users and patients:

1.) The statistical study was rejected for publication in the more rigorous British Medical Journal following peer review and was instead published in the "open-access" area. Some of the reasons for the rejection include the following selections from peers in the field (though bear in mind they are a bit out of context, for the full analysis, see link):

a.) The major limitation of this excellent paper is the lack of any
validation cohort. Given the potential importance of these data I do
think some kind of external validation, in any dataset would be
useful.

b.)Methods: The authors report that the population is mostly of low socio-economic status and less than one-third are insured under the Geisinger Health Plan. How do these patients differ from the others; are they ’the frailest of frail’ and might this cause some selection bias? Methods: How are the accuracy and completeness of death register in this study validated? Were cause-of-death data available? The authors debate about accidents and falls as possible causes for mortality.

2.) Another article discusses:

"While the researchers say this points to the dangers of sleeping pills, I think it says far more about the differences between those who fill prescriptions for sleep aids and those who don’t -- rather than about the dangers of the pills themselves.

Are they more likely to have clinical depression, an anxiety disorder, chronic sleep loss? While the researchers controlled for certain factors that could increase death risk such as smoking, alcohol use, and heart disease, they didn’t account for psychological disorders -- nor did they tease out the causes of death."

3.) Not answered by the study, though I did not expect it to be, would be the question of how these very different types of drugs (though all are generally depressants/anxiolytics of some sort) cause cancer/deaths so much more so than the norm? It's obvious why stress/sleep disorders/other health effects would cause that and that is sort of addressed as a problem with the study since there are valid reasons and preexisting conditions that cause people to use these drugs, but specifically how would these (again, different types) of drugs do that? Correlation/causation, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, I'd expect to be a significant issue here that is not completely addressed by the control group selections, although this is still a fairly well-done study conducted by a sleep institute.

IANAS (I Am Not A Statistician).

 

[paranoid android]

Well i nearly killed myself when i had untreated insomnia or i atleast would have ended up paralyzed. I was working on a construction job and not sleeping more then 3 hours a night at best and i had a near accident that would have sent me to the concrete a good 30 feet below. I was zoning out regularly so i was not paying attention. As fucked up as it sounds sleeping pills have not only made me happier but also way more functional throughout the years. Anyone who's ever done shift work could sympathize with this.

So i think this study is much like comparing people who have high BP and take their meds to people who have high BP and don't take their meds.

 

[TheAppleCore]

It's just not a controlled experiment. There's no way that they could select a true "control group", whose health profiles and lifestyles exactly match those of the sleeping-pill-munchers. Why? Because there has to be a difference between someone who feels they need to take sleeping pills, and someone who doesn't. One group feels that they are sick, and need treatment -- the other feels that they are healthy. And THIS is the key difference that is responsible for the increase in death risk, I am almost 100% confident -- the meds are just correlated.

Also, if there were some strange, deadly side-effect *inherent* in say, tamazepam, what are the chances of this side effect also showing up in a completely unrelated z-drug like zolpidem?

 

[coelophysis]

The study, published in the journal BMJ Open, analysed 10,500 people taking a wide-range of sleeping pills, including tamazepam and diazepam. They compared people taking sleeping tablets with those who were not using the drugs but had a similar lifestyle and health conditions.

People taking higher doses of tamazepam pills, which were dispensed 2.8m times in England in 2010, were six times more likely to die in the next two-and-a-half years.

Aren't drugs like these meant to treat anxiety issues? Why would they prescribe them for sleep when that's not what they're made for is beyond me.

 

[TheAppleCore]

^ Benzodiazepines work very well for sleep aid, and are prescribed thusly.

 

[coelophysis]

I understand they get the job done. But so do opiates. That doesn't mean that's what they should be used for. In my opinion at least.

 

[SameOldShit101]

What worries me here, is that if this has ANY substance to it, it may also mean that benzo type drugs have all the same or similar negative problems. My girl refuses to believe there is any substance to this research study. (I disagree and believe there may be some truth to this) What CNN failed to state was that the research leans toward hypnotics being the culprit, which is interesting because I was worried that it was the benzos that were causing the health issues. My girl says that she believes the research is flawed, simply because people whom take sleeping pills or hypnotic medications tend to be (generally) less healthy than people whom do not. I can see the light of her argument, but I'm still wanting and attempting to keep an eye on this ungoing study. And... LAIKA... I don't think you can compare benzos for sleep to opiates for mental disorder/illness. Why? Because benzos genuinely DO help for sleep. So far, nothing I have tried, works better than a small (non-recreational, non-mind-altering.. almost) dosage of xanax, kpin, or valium. Even alcohol helps me get to sleep better than melotonin, lunesta, and diphenhydromein.

 

[jaurk]

I thought they were going to talk about doxylamine and DPH or promethazine.
I didn't think they'd prescribe benzos for sleep.... I mean I know some people who get that when they have panic attacks too, sort of recognized for sleeping too.