BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant®; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) has been demonstrated in several restless legs syndrome (RLS) phase II and phase III clinical studies at various doses from 600 mg to 2400 mg. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate key efficacy and safety outcomes in subjects with RLS treated with once-daily gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg, 1200 mg, 1800 mg and 2400 mg, providing supportive evidence of the efficacy of gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg compared with higher doses and placebo. STUDY DESIGN: Integrated post hoc analysis of three 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in subjects with RLS. SETTING: The three studies were carried out at multiple centres in the US. PATIENTS: In total, 760 subjects were included in the pooled analysis (placebo, n = 245; gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg, n = 163; gabapentin enacarbil 1200 mg, n = 269; gabapentin enacarbil 1800 mg, n = 38; gabapentin enacarbil 2400 mg, n = 45). INTERVENTION: In all studies, gabapentin enacarbil or placebo was administered once daily at approximately 5 p.m. with food. Gabapentin enacarbil was initiated at a dose of 600 mg with subsequent titration in 600 mg increments every 3 days up to the randomized dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The efficacy endpoints analysed for the purpose of this integrated analysis were change from baseline in International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) total score and the proportion of responders (subjects rated as 'much' or 'very much' improved) on the investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Safety endpoints assessed were the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. RESULTS:Gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg significantly improved IRLS total score compared with placebo (adjusted mean [standard error] change in IRLS total score from baseline to week 12 last observation carried forward: -13.6 [0.71] vs -9.3 [0.55]; adjusted mean treatment difference: -4.3; 95% CI -6.01, -2.52; p < 0.0001). A significantly higher proportion of subjects was rated as responders on the investigator-rated CGI-I scale with gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg compared with placebo (70.2% vs 42.2%; adjusted odds ratio 3.1; 95% CI 1.96, 4.89; p < 0.0001). Similar treatment benefits were seen with both efficacy endpoints for the three higher doses. The AEs reported most frequently were somnolence and dizziness; there was a dose-response relationship to these AEs. No new or unexpected safety issues were identified by this integrated analysis. CONCLUSION: The lowest dose of gabapentin enacarbil evaluated (600 mg) significantly improved RLS symptoms compared with placebo. The safety profile was consistent with that described previously in the literature.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant®; GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK) has been demonstrated in several restless legs syndrome (RLS) phase II and phase III clinical studies at various doses from 600 mg to 2400 mg. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate key efficacy and safety outcomes in subjects with RLS treated with once-daily gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg, 1200 mg, 1800 mg and 2400 mg, providing supportive evidence of the efficacy of gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg compared with higher doses and placebo. STUDY DESIGN: Integrated post hoc analysis of three 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in subjects with RLS. SETTING: The three studies were carried out at multiple centres in the US. PATIENTS: In total, 760 subjects were included in the pooled analysis (placebo, n = 245; gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg, n = 163; gabapentin enacarbil 1200 mg, n = 269; gabapentin enacarbil 1800 mg, n = 38; gabapentin enacarbil 2400 mg, n = 45). INTERVENTION: In all studies, gabapentin enacarbil or placebo was administered once daily at approximately 5 p.m. with food. Gabapentin enacarbil was initiated at a dose of 600 mg with subsequent titration in 600 mg increments every 3 days up to the randomized dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The efficacy endpoints analysed for the purpose of this integrated analysis were change from baseline in International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) total score and the proportion of responders (subjects rated as 'much' or 'very much' improved) on the investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Safety endpoints assessed were the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. RESULTS:Gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg significantly improved IRLS total score compared with placebo (adjusted mean [standard error] change in IRLS total score from baseline to week 12 last observation carried forward: -13.6 [0.71] vs -9.3 [0.55]; adjusted mean treatment difference: -4.3; 95% CI -6.01, -2.52; p < 0.0001). A significantly higher proportion of subjects was rated as responders on the investigator-rated CGI-I scale with gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg compared with placebo (70.2% vs 42.2%; adjusted odds ratio 3.1; 95% CI 1.96, 4.89; p < 0.0001). Similar treatment benefits were seen with both efficacy endpoints for the three higher doses. The AEs reported most frequently were somnolence and dizziness; there was a dose-response relationship to these AEs. No new or unexpected safety issues were identified by this integrated analysis. CONCLUSION: The lowest dose of gabapentin enacarbil evaluated (600 mg) significantly improved RLS symptoms compared with placebo. The safety profile was consistent with that described previously in the literature.
Authors: Wayne Hening; Arthur S Walters; Richard P Allen; Jacques Montplaisir; Andrew Myers; Luigi Ferini-Strambi Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Richard P Allen; Arthur S Walters; Jacques Montplaisir; Wayne Hening; Andrew Myers; Timothy J Bell; Luigi Ferini-Strambi Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-06-13
Authors: Richard K Bogan; Michel A Cramer Bornemann; Clete A Kushida; Pierre V Trân; Ronald W Barrett Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 7.616
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: Richard P Allen; Daniel Picchietti; Wayne A Hening; Claudia Trenkwalder; Arthur S Walters; Jacques Montplaisi Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2003-03 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: Kenneth C Cundy; Thamil Annamalai; Lin Bu; Josephine De Vera; Jenny Estrela; Wendy Luo; Payal Shirsat; Allan Torneros; Fenmei Yao; Joan Zou; Ronald W Barrett; Mark A Gallop Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2004-05-14 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Kenneth C Cundy; Russell Branch; Tania Chernov-Rogan; Tracy Dias; Toño Estrada; Karin Hold; Kerry Koller; Xiaoli Liu; Adam Mann; Matt Panuwat; Stephen P Raillard; Shubhra Upadhyay; Quincey Q Wu; Jia-Ning Xiang; Hui Yan; Noa Zerangue; Cindy X Zhou; Ronald W Barrett; Mark A Gallop Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2004-05-14 Impact factor: 4.030