Sleeping Pills Under Scrutiny, Article Review Example

In recent decades we have witnessed a widening divide between the general public and the pharmaceutical industry. With potential consumers/patients more aware of “Big Pharma” than ever before, the manufacturing and distribution of pharmaceutical drugs has come under intense scrutiny from laypersons and professionals alike. Sometimes the extra attention can be beneficial to the point of saving lives (Vioxx recall), while other times it can lead to unwarranted skepticism, wasted resources, and reduced medical participation of the population (autism-vaccine “link”). Even with the threat of an occasional wild goose chase, few could argue against the need for the continuing evaluation of the unintended effects that may be associated with virtually any pharmaceutical product.

Unsurprisingly, painkilling drugs have been placed in the spotlight due to their high abuse potential and the threat of over-prescription. Much of the population has become familiar with prescription narcotics and their associated risks through popular media. Now another type of pharmaceutical drug is appearing in the news as a suspected purveyor of inadvertent misery. A 2010 article by Dr. Jerry Siegel provides a brief review of the controversy that continues to develop regarding sleeping pills.

Usage

According to Siegel’s article, the number of prescriptions filled for sleeping pills increased by 70 percent from 2002 to 2008. This is an astonishing increase and immediately brings to mind the public distrust arising from the over-prescription of narcotics. Like painkillers, sleeping pills are addictive and have a high rate of abuse. We must also consider that the increase of prescriptions may be the result of less dubious factors such as higher rates of insomnia incidence. Further examination of usage statistics reveals that, though most sleeping pills are only intended to be used for a few weeks, two-thirds of prescribed medication is consumed by long-term users (five years or more). Clearly there is a problem concerning adherence to prescription regimens, which can be the fault of the medical professional, the patient, or both.

Sleeping pills (sometimes known as hypnotics) are patently used to treat insomnia, though many are also prescribed as sedatives in the treatment of anxiety disorders. In both cases the drug acts primarily by imitating the chemical GABA. As a naturally occurring brain chemical, GABA is known to slow neuron activity. Sleeping pills bind to the same receptors as GABA and result in the inhibition of brain activity. However, Siegel points out that these receptors are found in many areas of the brain and their activation can affect many functions unrelated to wakefulness. The result of using pharmaceutical sleeping aids is not simply the attenuation of neural excitement, and some of these drug-induced changes can be adverse to the sleeping process. Consequently, sleep that occurs as a result of sleeping pill use is not considered natural.

Concerns

The unnatural state of sleep induced by sleeping pills is just one of the many questionable aspects of the treatment that are touched upon in Siegel’s article. The author raises a fundamental concern about the necessity of treating insomnia as an affliction by referring to studies that demonstrate equal or better lifespans among insomniacs when compared to “regular” sleepers. It is also noted that insomnia has been linked to depression, though a discussion or at least mention of the causal direction is suspiciously absent, and that the incidence of depression doubled in groups of insomniacs taking benzodiazepine sleeping pills when compared to those given a placebo. Additionally, suicide rates are linked with the use of sleeping pills (Bower et al., 2011).

The most striking claim in this article compares the rates of shortened lifespan due to sleeping pill use with those of cigarette smokers. The impact of this information cannot be understated if it is true (it would have been nice to see some numbers reproduced), and should expose sleeping pills to intense scrutiny. Evidence of sleeping pill association with cancer, heart problems, and infection serve to cement the notion that these drugs are clearly unsafe and possibly unnecessary.

Conclusion

The article “Are Sleeping Pills Good for You?” by Jerry Siegel could be mistaken for a diatribe against sleeping pills and the pharmaceutical industry. The amount of anti-sleeping pill content practically dwarfs any trace of favorable content, leaving little doubt of some bias on the part of the author. The most damning example of potential biasing concerns the most salient part of the article. Siegel fails to provide evidence while making claims about the comparison of sleeping pill use to cigarettes as welve supporting pieces of research are mentioned but not referenced. Omission of the research may be the result of the intended medium (a popular news site) rather than biased reporting, but it is alarming from an academic perspective.

While sleeping aids may or may not be causing harm comparable to cigarette smoking, the more clearly documented pieces of evidence presented by Siegel supports the claim that sleeping pills are indeed bad for you. These medications appear to carry significant risks with minimal benefits (Lader, 2012) and could potentially be replaced by newer medications (Willyard, 2012) and/or non-pharmaceutical treatments like cognitive behavioral therapy.

References

Bower, K., McCammon, R., Wolnar, M., Ilgen, M., Wojnar, J., and Valenstein, M. (2011). Prescription sleeping pills, insomnia, and suicidality in the National Comorbidity Survey replication. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 72(4), 515-521.

Lader, M. (2012). Benzodiazepine harm: How can it be reduced? British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. Accepted manuscript online.

Siegel, J. (2010). Are sleeping pills good for you? Posted to Huffington Post.

Willyard, C. (2010). New class of sleep drugs may offer a safer night’s rest. Nature Medicine, 18(7), 996.