OBJECTIVE: To assess maintenance of efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil in patients with moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study (conducted April 18, 2006, to November 14, 2007) comprised a 24-week, single-blind (SB) treatment phase (gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg) followed by a 12-week randomized, double-blind (DB) phase. Responders from the SB phase (patients with improvements on the International Restless Legs Scale [IRLS] and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at week 24 and stable while taking a gabapentin enacarbil dose of 1200 mg for at least 1 month before randomization) were randomized to gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg, or placebo once daily at 5 pm with food. The primary end point was the proportion of patients experiencing relapse (worse scores on the IRLS and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change scale on 2 consecutive visits at least 1 week apart or withdrawal because of lack of efficacy) during the DB phase. RESULTS:A total of 221 of 327 patients completed the SB phase, 194 (96 in the gabapentin enacarbil group and 98 in the placebo group) were randomized to DB treatment, and 168 (84 in the gabapentin enacarbil group and 84 in the placebo group) completed the DB phase. A significantly smaller proportion of patients treated with gabapentin enacarbil (9/96 [9%]) experienced relapse compared with the placebo-treated patients (22/97 [23%]) (odds ratio, 0.353; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.8; P=.02). Somnolence and dizziness were the most common adverse events. One death occurred (unintentional choking during the SB phase) and was judged as being unrelated to the study drug. No clinically relevant changes were observed in laboratory values, in vital signs, or on electrocardiograms. CONCLUSION:Gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg, maintained improvements in RLS symptoms compared with placebo and showed long-term tolerability in adults with moderate to severe primary RLS for up to 9 months of treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess maintenance of efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil in patients with moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study (conducted April 18, 2006, to November 14, 2007) comprised a 24-week, single-blind (SB) treatment phase (gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg) followed by a 12-week randomized, double-blind (DB) phase. Responders from the SB phase (patients with improvements on the International Restless Legs Scale [IRLS] and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at week 24 and stable while taking a gabapentin enacarbil dose of 1200 mg for at least 1 month before randomization) were randomized to gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg, or placebo once daily at 5 pm with food. The primary end point was the proportion of patients experiencing relapse (worse scores on the IRLS and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change scale on 2 consecutive visits at least 1 week apart or withdrawal because of lack of efficacy) during the DB phase. RESULTS: A total of 221 of 327 patients completed the SB phase, 194 (96 in the gabapentin enacarbil group and 98 in the placebo group) were randomized to DB treatment, and 168 (84 in the gabapentin enacarbil group and 84 in the placebo group) completed the DB phase. A significantly smaller proportion of patients treated with gabapentin enacarbil (9/96 [9%]) experienced relapse compared with the placebo-treated patients (22/97 [23%]) (odds ratio, 0.353; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.8; P=.02). Somnolence and dizziness were the most common adverse events. One death occurred (unintentional choking during the SB phase) and was judged as being unrelated to the study drug. No clinically relevant changes were observed in laboratory values, in vital signs, or on electrocardiograms. CONCLUSION:Gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg, maintained improvements in RLS symptoms compared with placebo and showed long-term tolerability in adults with moderate to severe primary RLS for up to 9 months of treatment.
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Arthur S Walters; Philip Becker; Stephen G Thein; A Thomas Perkins; Thomas Roth; Daniel Canafax; Ronald W Barrett Journal: Sleep Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Luigi Ferini-Strambi; Dagfinn Aarskog; Markku Partinen; K Ray Chaudhuri; Mandy Sohr; Daniela Verri; Stefan Albrecht Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Kenneth C Cundy; Srikonda Sastry; Wendy Luo; Joan Zou; Tristen L Moors; Daniel M Canafax Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Ted J Kaptchuk; John M Kelley; Lisa A Conboy; Roger B Davis; Catherine E Kerr; Eric E Jacobson; Irving Kirsch; Rosa N Schyner; Bong Hyun Nam; Long T Nguyen; Min Park; Andrea L Rivers; Claire McManus; Efi Kokkotou; Douglas A Drossman; Peter Goldman; Anthony J Lembo Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-03
Authors: R Nisha Aurora; David A Kristo; Sabin R Bista; James A Rowley; Rochelle S Zak; Kenneth R Casey; Carin I Lamm; Sharon L Tracy; Richard S Rosenberg Journal: Sleep Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Nichole C Sanders; Michael J Mancino; W Brooks Gentry; J Benjamin Guise; Warren K Bickel; Jeff Thostenson; Alison H Oliveto Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2013-07-15 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Neal Hermanowicz; Aaron Ellenbogen; Gordon Irving; Mark Buchfuhrer; Mark J Jaros; Gwendoline Shang; Richard Kim Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 5.749