388 Prazepam
drawing from alcohol in the past, but no one suffered the affliction while
receiving prazepam. A subsequent study of alcohol withdrawal management
rated prazepam as better than placebo but not as good as chlordiazepoxide.
The latter study also found that benefits declined with time; after 14 days the
placebo, chlordiazepoxide, and prazepam groups of alcoholics were all faring
the same. Also during the latter study, in comparison to placebo, about three
times as many patients receiving prazepam broke sobriety—a curious and
discouraging finding.
Drawbacks.Volunteers taking prazepam showed little sedation and little
difference in mental ability tests when compared to performance before taking
the drug. Prazepam has been praised for having fewer unwanted effects than
diazepam, and for being better absorbed by the body than clorazepate dipo-
tassium. In one experiment a single large dose at night produced less dizziness
than taking three divided doses during the day, a factor relevant to the po-
tential of falls (especially among the elderly). Unwanted effects can include
dry mouth, weakness, and sleepiness. Tests comparing equivalent-strength
oral doses of the drug in liquid and solid formats find the liquid version to
be a more potent sedative, a difference ascribed to quicker absorption by the
body. In an experiment testing the drug on people of various ages, a dose
seemed to last longer in older men, but that change was not seen in older
women. An experiment found the drug’s effect on movement was similar to
that of chlordiazepoxide, suggesting that operating an automobile might be
dangerous when using prazepam.
Abuse factors.Not enough scientific information to report about prazepam’s
specific characteristics, but they should be consistent with general character-
istics of the benzodiazepine class of depressants.
Drug interactions. The antacid remedy cimetidine probably slows the
body’s metabolism of prazepam. Scores on tests of reaction time and mental
ability can become worse when alcohol is used along with prazepam.
Cancer.Two experiments, one with rats and one with mice, failed to dem-
onstrate potential for causing cancer. Potential for causing human cancer is
unknown.
Pregnancy.A small amount of the drug passes from a nursing mother into
her milk.
Additional scientific information may be found in:Daniel, J.T., and W.W.K. Zung. “Double Blind Clinical Comparison of Prazepam, Lor-
azepam, Diazepam, and Placebo in the Treatment of Anxiety in a Private Sur-
gical Outpatient Practice.”Current Therapeutic Research: Clinical and Experimental
30 (1981): 417–26.
Dorman, T. “Multicenter Comparison of Prazepam and Diazepam in the Treatment of
Anxiety.”Pharmatherapeutica3 (1983): 433–40.
Greenblatt, D.J., and R.I. Shader. “Prazepam and Lorazepam, Two New Benzodiaze-
pines.”New England Journal of Medicine299 (1978): 1342–44.
Guelfi, J.D., S. Lancrenon, and V. Millet. “E ́tude Comparative en Double Insu du Bro-
mazepam versus Prazepam dans l’anxiete Non Psychotique [Comparative
Double-Blind Study of Bromazepam versus Prazepam in Non-Psychotic
Anxiety].”L’Encephale19 (1993): 547–52. Abstract in English.
Kingstone, E., A. Villeneuve, and I. Kossatz. “Double-Blind Evaluation of Prazepam,