Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T02:34:34.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethinamate and Methyprylone as Hypnotics: A Comparative Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

I. C. Lodge Patch ,
M. D. Eilenberg  and
E. H. Hare
I. C. Lodge Patch
Affiliation:
Bethlem Royal and The Maudsley Hospitals
M. D. Eilenberg
Affiliation:
Bethlem Royal and The Maudsley Hospitals
E. H. Hare
Affiliation:
Bethlem Royal and The Maudsley Hospitals
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of barbiturates in the treatment of insomnia carries a constant risk of habituation and of fatal poisoning from suicidal or accidental overdose. For these reasons, new non-barbiturate hypnotics deserve the closest attention. Ethinamate (“Valmidate”) and methyprylone (“Noludar”) are two such drugs. No trial comparing the hypnotic efficacy of ethinamate with a barbiturate has yet been reported, though Gruber et al. (1954) found the day-time sedative effect of 500 mg. ethinamate to be less (in duration of action) than 100 mg. of quinalbarbitone sodium. Methyprylone has been compared with barbiturate by Stewart (1956) who found 200 mg. equivalent to 100 mg. of amylo- or butobarbitone, by Lasagna (1956) who found 250 mg. equivalent to 100 mg. of pento- or quinal-barbitone, and by Thomson (1958) who found 400 mg. equivalent to 100 mg. of quinalbarbitone.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 106 , Issue 445 , October 1960 , pp. 1455 - 1458
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1960 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Drew, G. C., Colquhoun, W. P., and Long, H. A., Brit. med. J., 1958, ii, 993.Google Scholar
Gruber, C. M., Kohlstaedt, K. G., Moore, R. B., and Peck, F. B., J. Pharmacol., 1954, 112, 480.Google Scholar
Hare, E. H., Brit. J. prev. soc. Med., 1955, 9, 140.Google Scholar
Lasagna, L., J. chron. Dis., 1956, 3, 122.Google Scholar
Salter, C. E., Lodge Patch, I. C., and Hare, E. H., J. Clin. and Exper. Psychopathol., 1959, 20, 243.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. S., Brit. med. J., 1956, ii, 1465.Google Scholar
Thomson, T. J., ibid., 1958, ii, 1140.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.