carbamates and Fatigue

carbamates has been researched along with Fatigue in 17 studies

Fatigue: The state of weariness following a period of exertion, mental or physical, characterized by a decreased capacity for work and reduced efficiency to respond to stimuli.

Research

Studies (17)

Authors

Clinical Trials (11)

Trial Overview

Trial Outcomes

16 Wk EBR/GZR With RBV Efficacy on Patients With HCV RASs

"Efficacy of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Treatment with Zepatier (Elbasvir/Grazobevir) with Ribavirin (RBV) for 16 weeks when used in Genotype 1a patients with Baseline RASs (NS5a Resistance Associated Substitutions or RAPs -Resistance Associated Polymorphisms).~Efficacy defined as HCV RNA undetectable 12 weeks post treatment. Table excludes Genotype 1b patients." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12 weeks post treatment

HCV SVR Durability -No Cirrhosis

Number/Percentage of patients with persistence of viral cure, SVR (SVR = Sustained Virologic Response)- defined as undetectable HCV RNA at least 24 weeks following HCV Treatment. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 24 weeks post-end of treatment up to 153 weeks

HCV SVR Durability-Patients With Cirrhosis

Percentage of Cirrhotic patients with persistence of viral cure, SVR, (SVR= Sustained Virologic Response) defined as undetectable HCV RNA at least 24 weeks following HCV Treatment. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Up to 132 weeks post HCV treatment

Mean Change in Fatigue PRO -EBR/GZR vs SOF/LDV

Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline and Average On-Treatment Score

Mean Change in Fatigue PRO Score -Phase 1

Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to On-treatment

Mean Change in HCV- PRO- Phase 1

"HCV-PRO, a survey for patients with HCV that measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess 'overall functioning and well-being'. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being.~Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to End of Treatment

Mean Change in HCV-PRO (Functional Well-being) EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV Score-Phase 2

"HCV-PRO, a survey designed to assess functional status of patients with HCV and measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess functional well-being. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being.~Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered. End of Treatment -Baseline were used to calculate CHANGE in outcome. Number of subjects reflects participants from both Phase 1 and 2." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: End of Treatment - Baseline

Mean Change in Headache-EBR/GZR and SOF/LDV

Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Mean change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to On-Treatment

Mean Change in Headache-PRO Scores -Phase 1

Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Mean change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement in symptom. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to On-Treatment

Mean Change in Nausea/Vomiting PRO Score -Phase 1

"Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement.~The estimates of mean change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes. The model expressed mean score as a function of DAA regimen, cirrhosis status, HCV genotype, sex, age, race, and previous treatment status." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to On-Treatment

Mean Change in Nausea/Vomiting PROMIS Score -EBR/GZR vs. LDV/SOF

"Participants completed the Patient Reported Outcomes surveys (PROs) 'PROMIS Nausea/Vomiting -4 Short Form' at baseline and during treatment. Raw scores are converted to standardized T-scores with a range of 45.0-80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea/vomiting.~Results presented as mean difference from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores (highest/worst) score during treatment.~A negative (-) PROMIS change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. Estimates of mean change were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline and Average On-Treatment Score

Median Change in Fatigue -Phase 1

Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to End of Treatment

Median Change in Fatigue-Phase 2

Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline-On Treatment (up to 16 weeks)

Median Change in HCV-PRO (Overall Well Being) -Phase 1

"HCV-PRO, a survey for patients with HCV that measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess 'Overall Functioning and Well-being'. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being.~Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to End of Treatment

Median Change in Headache -Phase 1

Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Median change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12 weeks (Baseline and Average On-treatment Score)

Median Change in Headache-Phase 2

Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Median change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of median change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline -on Treatment (12-16 weeks)

Median Change in Nausea PRO Score -Phase 1

"Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement.~The estimates of change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to end of treatment

Median Change in Nausea PROMIS Score-EBR/GZR SOF/LDV

"Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for change represent improvement.~The estimates of change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline- On Treatment (up to 16 weeks)

Number of Participants With Adverse Events That Caused Treatment Discontinuation-EBR/GZR vs. LDV/SOF

The number of participants with adverse events that led to early treatment discontinuation (defined as duration less than originally prescribed treatment regimen) (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Treatment start date through treatment completion (up to 24 weeks)

Phase 1 Number of Participants With Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12-mITT Without Imputation)

"SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site).~Number of subjects reflects participants randomized during Phase 1 only." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12 -24 weeks post-treatment

Phase 1-Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12) mITT With Imputation

"SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as patients who have undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site).~mITT with imputation (missing=failure). Total number of subjects reflects participants from Phase 1 only." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12 weeks post-treatment

Phase 1/2 Number of Participants With Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12-mITT Without Imputation)

"SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site).~Number of subjects reflects participants who started EBR/GZR or SOF/LDV- based treatment (with or without RBV) during Phase 1 and 2." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12-24 weeks post HCV treatment

Post-treatment Progression/Regression of Liver Disease-Fib-4

Mean change (delta) in FIB-4, an indirect non-invasive measure of liver fibrosis, calculated as baseline median -long term follow up median, following SVR after any of the study treatment regimens. Change in FIB-4 where negative values indicate improvement in liver fibrosis score and positive values indicate worsening of fibrosis score. There is no upper or lower limit for change. FIB-4 = age (years) * AST(IU/L)/Platelets (10^3/L) * ALT^.5(IU/L). In general, Score of 0-1.29 is low risk for advanced fibrosis, 1.30-1.67: intermediate risk for advanced liver fibrosis, >2.67: high risk for advanced fibrosis. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Baseline to up to 3 years post treatment discontinuation

Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12) mITT With Imputation-Phase 1 and 2 EBR/GZR, SOF/LDV

"SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation at discretion of provider).~mITT with imputation (missing=failure). Total number of subjects reflects participants from EBR/GZR with or without RBV and SOF/LDV with or without RBV randomized during Phase 1 and Phase 2." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12 weeks post-treatment

Treatment Non-Adherence Probability Estimates

"The Voils Medication Adherence Survey (VMAS) was used to evaluate medication adherence during HCV treatment. Participants responded to three questions about the extent of adherence during the past seven days of treatment (during early and late on-treatment occasions). Participants responded using a five-point ordinal scale of missed dosing from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (all of the time). On each occasion participants were coded as being Non-adherent if any response was > 1, otherwise they were coded as Adherent. Probability estimates of percentage of patients reporting non-adherence were calculated per HCV treatment (Direct Acting Antiviral-DAA) regimen: 1)EBR/GZV (elbasvir/grazoprevir, 2)SOF/LDV (sofosbuvir/ledipasvir), 3)PrOD" (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12-16 weeks of HCV treatment

Change in Functional Status (HCV-PRO) Within Treatment

"HCV-PRO score, a validated PROMIS survey used to evaluate overall functioning and well-being in HCV patients, was utilized to compare long-term 'within treatment' changes of functional well-being. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive estimate (Post treatment to baseline) suggests baseline functional well-being improvement.~Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered." (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: Treatment start date up to 2 years post-treatment

Change in HCV-associated Symptoms (PROMIS Measures) After HCV Treatment Initiation

Change in HCV-associated symptoms was calculated as the mean differences of mean scores from multiple surveys from the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-- Fatigue, nausea, belly pain, sleep disturbance, and diarrhea) and functional status (well-being) when comparing baseline to early post-treatment and late post treatment surveys. Mean change scores were calculated by comparing baseline to early post-treatment (1 yr) and late post-treatment (approximately 3 years) surveys. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement.Negative numbers suggest better symptoms (improvement in HCV-associated symptoms). PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35.HCV-PRO positive estimates suggest baseline functional well-being improvement. (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 1 year post treatment discontinuation (Early post-tx)

Impact of Baseline NS5A RASs on Treatment Outcomes-Phase 2

Number of participants who achieved SVR (sustained virologic response), defined as undetectable HCV RNA 12 weeks post-treatment with RASs (Resistant Associated Substitutions) after treatment with EBR/GZR or SOF/LDV regimen (NCT02786537)
Timeframe: 12 weeks post HCV treatment

Part 1 and Part 2: Disease Control Rate (DCR)

DCR was calculated as the percentage of participants with a best overall response (BOR) of CR, PR, or stable disease (SD). CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. Two sets of DCR were considered, one for confirmed and one for unconfirmed responses. Results are reported for confirmed and unconfirmed responses combined. SD: Neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR or CR nor an increase in lesions which would qualify for PD. DCR was based on central review. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1 and Part 2: Duration of Response (DOR)

DOR was calculated, as the time from the date of first documented response (CR or PR) to the first documented progression or death due to underlying cancer. DOR was estimated for responders (i.e. participants achieving at least once CR or PR) only using a Kaplan-Meier method. CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. If a participant with a CR or PR had no progression or death due to underlying disease, the participant was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. Results are based on confirmed BIRC response. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1 and Part 2: Objective Response Rate (ORR)

ORR, calculated as the percentage of participants with a best overall response of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to < 10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. Results are reported for confirmed BIRC response. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Definitive 1 Point Deterioration in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS)

ECOG: participant's performance status was measured on a 6-point scale: 0= fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1= restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light and sedentary nature; 2= ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50 percent (%) of waking hours; 3= capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair >50% of waking hours; 4= completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed/chair: 5= dead. Definitive deterioration was defined as death due to any cause or decrease in ECOG PS by at least one category from baseline score with no subsequent improvement. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Definitive 10% Deterioration in the Function Assessment Cancer Therapy-melanoma (FACT-M) Subscale

FACT-M:melanoma specific questionnaire to assess participant health-related quality of life. Melanoma specific subscale consists of 16 items related to signs,symptoms,physical/social activities most relevant to participants with advanced-stage melanoma. Other items include physical, functional and social/family well-being (7 items each),emotional well-being (6 items),surgery specific concerns related to melanoma(8 items,not included in this study). Each item range from 0(not at all) to 4(very much), combined to produce subscale scores.Total score range for FACT-M excluding surgery specific items is 0 to 172,higher scores represent better quality of life.Melanoma subscale score range from 0(worst response) to 64(best response),higher score indicated better quality of life. Time to definitive 10% deterioration:time from date of randomization to date of event with at least 10% relative to baseline worsening of corresponding scale score with no later improvement or death due to any cause. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Date of randomization to date of event or death due to any cause, which ever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Definitive 10% Deterioration in the Global Health Status Score of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30)

"EORTC QLQ-C30 is 30 item questionnaire composed of 5 multi-item functional subscales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, social functioning), 3 multi-item symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), global health/quality of life (QOL) subscale and 6 single items assessing other cancer related symptoms (dyspnea, sleep disturbance, appetite, diarrhea, constipation and financial impact of cancer). It employed twenty-eight 4 point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7 point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Global health status scale score ranged from 0 to 100. Higher score represented better level of functioning. Time to definitive 10% deterioration: time from date of randomization to date of event with at least 10% relative to baseline worsening of corresponding scale score with no later improvement or death due to any cause." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Date of randomization to date of event or death due to any cause, which ever occurred first (maximum up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1 and Part 2: Time to Objective Response (TTR)

TTR was the time between date of randomization until first documented response of CR or PR. Participants who did not achieve a PR or CR were censored at the last adequate tumor assessment date when they did not have a PFS event or at maximum follow-up (i.e. first patient first visit [FPFV] to last patient last visit [LPLV] used for the analysis) when they had a PFS event. CR was defined as disappearance of all non-nodal target lesions. In addition, any pathological lymph nodes assigned as target lesions must have a reduction in short axis to <10 mm. PR was defined as at least a 30% decrease in the sum of diameter of all target lesions, taking as reference the baseline sum of diameters. TTR was estimated in the treatment arms using a Kaplan-Meier method. TTR was based on central review. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until disease progression, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months for Part 1, excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 2 and Part 1 LGX 300 mg group)

Part 1: Progression Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) in Combo 450 Group as Compared to LGX818 Group

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. PFS was determined based on tumor assessment (RECIST version 1.1 criteria) as per BIRC and survival information. If a participant did not had an event at the time of the analysis cut-off or at the start of any new anti-cancer therapy, data was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. PD was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of diameter of all target lesions recorded at or after baseline. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 mm^2. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until documented disease progression (PD), initiation of new anti-cancer therapy, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 35 months for Part 1: LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Progression Free Survival (PFS) by Blinded Independent Review Committee (BIRC) in Combo 450 Group as Compared to Vemurafenib Group

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. PFS was determined based on tumor assessment (RECIST version 1.1 criteria) as per BIRC/central review and survival information. If a participant did not had an event at the time of the analysis cut-off or at the start of any new anti-cancer therapy, data was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. PD was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of diameter of all target lesions recorded at or after baseline. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 square millimeter (mm^2). (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until documented disease progression (PD), initiation of new anti-cancer therapy, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 29 months)

Part 2: Progression Free Survival (PFS) by BIRC in Combo 300 Group as Compared to LGX818 Group

PFS was defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documented disease progression (PD) or death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. PFS was determined based on tumor assessment (RECIST version 1.1 criteria) as per BIRC and survival information. If a participant did not had an event at the time of the analysis cut-off or at the start of any new anti-cancer therapy, data was censored at the date of last adequate tumor assessment. PD was defined as at least a 20% increase in the sum of diameter of all measured target lesions, taking as reference the smallest sum of diameter of all target lesions recorded at or after baseline. In addition to the relative increase of 20%, the sum must demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5 mm^2. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: From randomization until documented disease progression (PD), initiation of new anti-cancer therapy, censoring date or death, whichever occurred first (up to 35 months)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Emotional Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Emotional Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index Score at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health status in terms of a single index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consisted of two components: a health state profile (descriptive system) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) in which participants rate their overall health status from 0 (worst imaginable) to 100 (best imaginable), where higher scores indicated better health status. EQ-5D health state profile is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 response levels: 1=no problems, 2=slight problems, 3=moderate problems, 4=severe problems and 5=extreme problems. EQ-5D-5L health status index score range between 0 to 1. Higher score indicated better health status. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) Index Score at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health status in terms of a single index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consisted of two components: a health state profile (descriptive system) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) in which participants rate their overall health status from 0 (worst imaginable) to 100 (best imaginable), where higher scores indicated better health status. EQ-5D health state profile is comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 response levels: 1=no problems, 2=slight problems, 3=moderate problems, 4=severe problems and 5=extreme problems. EQ-5D-5L health status index score range between 0 to 1. Higher score indicated better health status. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Global Health Status Score of EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Global Health Status Score of EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Physical Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Physical Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Social Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in Social Functioning Scale Score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

"EORTC QLQ-C30 contains 30 items and is composed of multi-item and single-item measures. These include 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning), 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea and financial impact) and a global health status/quality of life (QOL) scale. The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items converted to 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represented a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represented more severe symptoms." (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in the Function Assessment Cancer Therapy-melanoma (FACT-M) Subscale at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

FACT-M: melanoma specific questionnaire to assess participant health-related quality of life. Melanoma specific subscale consists of 16 items related to signs, symptoms, physical/social activities most relevant to participants with advanced-stage melanoma. Other items include physical, functional and social/family well-being (7 items each),emotional well-being (6 items),surgery specific concerns related to melanoma(8 items, not included in this study). Each item range from 0(not at all) to 4(very much), combined to produce subscale scores. Total score range for FACT-M excluding surgery specific items is 0 to 172,higher scores represented better quality of life. Melanoma subscale score range from 0(worst response) to 64(best response),higher score indicated better quality of life. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Change From Baseline in the Function Assessment Cancer Therapy-melanoma (FACT-M) Subscale at Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and End of Treatment Visit

FACT-M: melanoma specific questionnaire to assess participant health-related quality of life. Melanoma specific subscale consists of 16 items related to signs, symptoms, physical/social activities most relevant to participants with advanced-stage melanoma. Other items include physical, functional and social/family well-being (7 items each),emotional well-being (6 items),surgery specific concerns related to melanoma(8 items, not included in this study). Each item range from 0(not at all) to 4(very much), combined to produce subscale scores. Total score range for FACT-M excluding surgery specific items is 0 to 172,higher scores represented better quality of life. Melanoma subscale score range from 0(worst response) to 64(best response),higher score indicated better quality of life. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1 of Cycle 1), Day 1 of Cycle 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25 and end of treatment visit (within14 days after the last dose of study drug)

Part 1 and Part 2: Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS)

ECOG: participant's performance status was measured on a 6-point scale: 0= fully active/able to carry on all pre-disease activities without restriction; 1= restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light and sedentary nature; 2= ambulatory and capable of all self-care, but unable to carry out any work activities, up and about more than 50% of waking hours; 3= capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed/chair >50% of waking hours; 4= completely disabled, cannot carry on any self-care, totally confined to bed/chair: 5= dead. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Part 1 and Part 2: Baseline, Day 1 of each cycle (Cycle 2 to Cycle 31)

Part 1: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shift From Baseline in Laboratory Parameter Values Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) Grade, Version 4.03

Number of participants with clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter values based on national cancer institute common terminology criteria (NCI-CTCAE) grade, Version 4.03 were graded from Grades 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Grade 5: Death. Clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter = worsening by at least 2 grades or to >=grade 3. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Number of Participants With Dermatologic-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Dermatologic-related AESI included rash, photosensitivity, nail disorders, skin infections, severe cutaneous adverse reactions and Palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE) syndrome. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notable Electrocardiogram (ECG) Values

Newly occurring notable ECG values were reported for QT (millisecond [ms]), QTcF (millisecond), QTcB (millisecond) and heart rate (beats per minute). Newly occurring was defined as participants not meeting criterion at baseline and meeting criterion post-baseline. Ranges for newly occurring notable ECG values (QT, QTcF, QTcB) are New greater than (>) 450, New >480, New >500, Increase from baseline >30, Increase from baseline >60. Heart rate: New <60, New >100 was considered as newly occurring notable value. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notably Abnormal Vital Signs

Notably abnormal vital signs were: Low/high systolic blood pressure (SBP) (millimeter of mercury [mmHg]): less than or equal to (<=) 90 mmHg with decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to (>=) 20 mmHg/>= 160 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=20 mmHg. Low/high diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [mmHg]: <= 50 mmHg with decrease from baseline of >=15 mmHg/>=100 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=15 mmHg. Low/high Pulse rate: <=50 beats per minute (bpm) with decrease from baseline of >=15 bpm/>= 120 bpm with increase from baseline of >=15 bpm. Low/high Weight [kilogram]: >=20 percent (%) decrease from baseline/>= 10% increase from baseline. Low/high Body temperature degree Celsius (C): <= 36 degree C/>= 37.5 degree C. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Number of Participants With Ocular-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Ocular-related AESI included retinopathy excluding retinal vein occlusion (RVO), RVO and uveitis-type events. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Number of Participants With Worst Post-baseline Left Ventricular Dysfunction Events (LVEF) Values by Multigated Acquisition (MUGA) Scans or Transthoracic Echocardiograms (ECHO), by CTCAE Grade

Participants with worst post-baseline LVEF Values were graded as Grade 0: Non missing value below Grade 2; Grade 2: LVEF between 40% and 50% or absolute reduction from baseline >=10% and < 20%; Grade 3: LVEF between 20% and 39% or absolute reduction from baseline >=20%; Grade 4: LVEF lower than 20%. Baseline was defined as the last non-missing value prior to the first dose of study treatment. Missing data were due to participants who died or withdrew consent prior to the first scheduled evaluation or missed evaluations as protocol deviations. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) as Graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE), Version 4.03

AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that results in death; is life-threatening; requires inpatient hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in persistent/significant disability/incapacity; results in congenital anomaly/birth defect or that is considered to be important medical event. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental activities of daily life (ADL); Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence; Grade 5: death. AEs of all grades were reported. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days from last dose of study drug (up to 30 months), excluding Part 1: LGX818 300 mg group; up to 36 months for Part 1 LGX 300 mg group

Part 1: Plasma Concentrations of LGX 818

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8 hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

Part 1: Plasma Concentrations of MEK162

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8, hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

Part 2: Number of Participants With Clinically Notable Shift From Baseline in Laboratory Parameter Values Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) Grade, Version 4.0

Number of participants with clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter values based on national cancer institute common terminology criteria (NCI-CTCAE) grade, Version 4.0 were graded from Grades 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Grade 5: Death. Clinically notable shift from baseline in laboratory parameter = worsening by at least 2 grades or to >=grade 3. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Number of Participants With Dermatologic-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Dermatologic-related AESI included rash, photosensitivity, nail disorders, skin infections, severe cutaneous adverse reactions and PPE syndrome. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notable ECG Values

Newly occurring notable ECG values were reported for QT (ms), QTcF (ms), QTcB (ms) and heart rate (bpm). Newly occurring was defined as participants not meeting criterion at baseline and meeting criterion post-baseline. Ranges for newly occurring notable ECG values (QT, QTcF, QTcB) are New >450, New >480, New >500, increase from baseline >30, Increase from baseline >60. Heart rate: New < 60, New >100 was considered as newly occurring notable value. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Number of Participants With Newly Occurring Notably Abnormal Vital Signs

Notably abnormal vital signs were: Low/high systolic blood pressure (SBP) in millimeter of mercury (mmHg): less than or equal to (<=) 90 mmHg with decrease from baseline of greater than or equal to (>=) 20 mmHg/>= 160 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=20 mmHg, Low/high diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [mmHg]: <=50 mmHg with decrease from baseline of >=15 mmHg/>=100 mmHg with increase from baseline of >=15 mmHg, Low/high pulse rate [bpm]: <=50 bpm with decrease from baseline of >=15 bpm/>=120 bpm with increase from baseline of >=15 bpm, Low/high weight (kg): >=20 % decrease from baseline/>= 10% increase from baseline Low/high Body temperature degree C): <= 36°C/>= 37.5 degree C. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Number of Participants With Ocular-related Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) Graded According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE) v4.03

AESI consisted of events for which there was a specific clinical interest with regard to LGX818 and/or MEK162 treatment. Ocular-related AESI included retinopathy excluding RVO, RVO and uveitis-type events. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only, intervention not indicated; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental ADL; Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence, urgent intervention indicated; Grade 5: death related to AE. AEs of grade 3 or 4 are reported in this outcome measure. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Number of Participants With Worst Post-baseline Left Ventricular Dysfunction Events (LVEF) Values by Multigated Acquisition (MUGA) Scans or Transthoracic Echocardiograms (ECHO), by CTCAE Grade

Participants with worst post-baseline LVEF Values were graded as Grade 0: Non missing value below Grade 2; Grade 2: LVEF between 40% and 50% or absolute reduction from baseline >=10% and < 20%;Grade 3: LVEF between 20% and 39% or absolute reduction from baseline >=20%; Grade 4: LVEF lower than 20%. Baseline was defined as the last non-missing value prior to the first dose of study treatment. Missing data were due to participants who died or withdrew consent prior to the first scheduled evaluation or missed evaluations as protocol deviations. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Percentage of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) as Graded by National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria (NCI-CTCAE), Version 4.03

AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that results in death; is life-threatening; requires inpatient hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in persistent/significant disability/incapacity; results in congenital anomaly/birth defect or that is considered to be important medical event. As per NCI-CTCAE version 4.03, severity was graded as Grade 1: asymptomatic/mild symptoms, clinical/diagnostic observations only; Grade 2: moderate, minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated, limiting age-appropriate instrumental activities of daily life (ADL); Grade 3: severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening, hospitalization/prolongation of existing hospitalization indicated, disabling, limiting self-care ADL; Grade 4: life-threatening consequence; Grade 5: death. AEs of all grades were reported. (NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Baseline up to 30 days after last dose of study drug (up to 36 months)

Part 2: Plasma Concentrations of LGX 818

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8 hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

Part 2: Plasma Concentrations of MEK162

(NCT01909453)
Timeframe: Cycle 1 Day 1: pre-dose, 0.5, 1.5, 4 to 8, hours post dose; Cycle 2 Day 1: pre-dose; Cycle 3 Day 1: pre-dose

Number of Subjects Cured

Subjects with post-treatment sustained virologic response (SVR) = Number of subjects with negative HCV RNA 12 weeks after completing therapy / number of subjects treated post-kidney transplantation (NCT02743897)
Timeframe: Baseline to 24 weeks

Number of Subjects With SAE Attributable to HCV Therapy

Number of subjects with major adverse events attributable to HCV therapy in post-kidney transplant (NCT02743897)
Timeframe: Baseline to 52 weeks

Number of Participants With Post-treatment Sustained Virologic Response (SVR)

The primary analysis will be based on a calculation of SVR rates (number of subjects with SVR; negative HCV RNA after completing Zepatier therapy) / (number of subjects treated with Zepatier post-heart transplantation) (NCT03146741)
Timeframe: Baseline to 24 weeks

Number of Severe Adverse Events (SAE) Attributable to HCV Therapy Post-heart Transplant

(NCT03146741)
Timeframe: Baseline to 52 weeks

Percentage of Participants Achieving Sustained Virologic Response at 12 Weeks After the End of Treatment (SVR12)

Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) was measured using the Roche COBAS® Taqman® HCV Test, v2.0 assay. SVR12 was defined as HCV RNA NCT02105467)
Timeframe: Week 24 (12 weeks after the end of treatment)

Percentage of Participants Achieving Sustained Virologic Response at 24 Weeks After the End of Treatment (SVR24)

Hepatitis C Virus RNA was measured using the Roche COBAS® Taqman® HCV Test, v2.0 assay. SVR24 was defined as HCV RNA NCT02105467)
Timeframe: Week 36 (24 weeks after the end of treatment)

Percentage of Participants Achieving Sustained Virologic Response at 4 Weeks After the End of Treatment (SVR4)

Hepatitis C Virus RNA was measured using the Roche COBAS® Taqman® HCV Test, v2.0 assay. SVR4 was defined as HCV RNA NCT02105467)
Timeframe: Week 16 (4 weeks after the end of treatment)

Percentage of Participants Discontinued From Study Treatment Because of an Adverse Event

An adverse event is defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An adverse event can therefore be any unfavourable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product or protocol-specified procedure, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product or protocol-specified procedure. Any worsening of a preexisting condition that is temporally associated with the use of the Sponsor's product, is also an adverse event. (NCT02105467)
Timeframe: Up to Week 12 (end of Blinded Treatment)

Percentage of Participants Experiencing at Least One Adverse Event

An adverse event is defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An adverse event can therefore be any unfavourable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product or protocol-specified procedure, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product or protocol-specified procedure. Any worsening of a preexisting condition that is temporally associated with the use of the Sponsor's product, is also an adverse event. (NCT02105467)
Timeframe: Up to Week 14 (14 days after the Blinded Treatment was completed)

Mean AUCss

The area under the plot of plasma concentration of drug against time after drug administration is defined as the area under the curve (AUC). The AUCss is the area under the curve during the steady-state period. The AUCss is of particular use in estimating the bioavailability of drugs, by measuring the extent of absorption. AUCss used concentration data from 0 to 24 hours at steady-state for Weeks 4 and 12. (NCT01332305)
Timeframe: Weeks 4 and 12

Mean Css, Max and Css, Min

"Css, max is defined as the maximum or peak concentration of a drug observed after multiple administration, at steady state. Css, max is one of the parameters of particular use in estimating the bioavailability of drugs, by measuring the total amount of drug absorbed. Css, min is defined as the minimum concentration of a drug observed after its administration, in steady state. ng, nanograms; PK, pharmacokinetic; W, week; BLQ, below limit of quantitation." (NCT01332305)
Timeframe: Weeks 4 and 12

Mean Tmax and T1/2

"Tmax is defined as the time to the maximum or peak concentration of a drug observed after multiple administration. T1/2 is defined as the time to when half of the total amount of a particular substance is eliminated from the body." (NCT01332305)
Timeframe: Weeks 4 and 12

"Number of Participants With a Score of Much Improved or Very Much Improved on the Investigator-rated CGI-I Scale (Response) at (Week 12) Using LOCF"

"The investigator -rated Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale is an assessment designed to allow investigators to rate the change of a participant's disease severity over time based on a seven-point scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved, a score of 2 being much improved, a score of 3 being minimally improved, a score of 4 being no change, a score of 5 being minimally improved,a score of 6 being much worse, and a score of 7 being very much worse. Participants with a response of much improved or very much improved were classified as responders." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 12

Change From Baseline in IRLS Rating Scale Total Score at Week 12 Using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)

The International Restless Legs Syndrome (IRLS) Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity. The scale reflects the participant-reported assessment of primary sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. Ten items (individually scored from 0 to 4) are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total scale score is a sum of all of the individual item scores and ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. The scale assesses symptoms over the week prior to measurement. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12

Change From Baseline in Sleep Adequacy, an Item on the MOS Sleep Scale, at Week 12 Using LOCF

"The MOS Sleep Scale measures most constructs of sleep. The scale has a battery of questions to measure specific aspects of sleep in participants with co-morbidities. The four domains scored from the MOS Sleep Scale were sleep disturbance,' sleep quantity,' sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The scores of the sleep adequacy domain ranged from 1 to 100, with a high score indicating greater adequacy. The assessment was completed at Baseline (Day 1) and end of Weeks, 4, 8, and 12 (or end of Treatment)." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Basline and Week 12

Change From Baseline in Sleep Quantity, an Item on the MOS Sleep Scale, at Week 12 Using LOCF

"The MOS Sleep Scale measures most constructs of sleep. The scale has a battery of questions to measure specific aspects of sleep in participants with co-morbidities. The four domains scored from the MOS Sleep Scale were sleep disturbance,' sleep quantity,' sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The scores of the sleep quantity domain were measured in time (number of hours of sleep each night). The assessment was completed at Baseline (Day 1) and end of Weeks, 4, 8, and 12 (or end of Treatment)." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12

Change From Baseline in the Average Daily RLS Pain Score at the End of Treatment (Week 12) for Participants With Pain at Baseline or the End of Week 12 Using LOCF

The Daily RLS pain score was assessed by participants reporting whether they experienced any pain associated with RLS in the last 24 hours and rating their pain levels on an 11-point numerical rating scale, with 0 being no pain and 10 the most intense pain imaginable. The assessment was performed for 7 days prior to Baseline and pre-defined study visits. The change from baseline was calculated as the End of Treatment (Week 12) value minus the Baseline (Day 1) value. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and End of Treatment (Week 12)

Change From Baseline in the Average Daily RLS Pain Score to Week 12 for Participants With a Baseline Pain Score of at Least 4 Using LOCF

The Average Daily RLS pain was assessed by participants reporting whether they experienced any pain associated with RLS in the last 24 hours and rating their pain levels on an 11-point numerical rating scale, with 0 being no pain and 10 the most intense pain imaginable. The assessment was performed for 7 days prior to Baseline and pre-defined visits. The change from baseline was calculated as the End of Treatment (Week 12) value minus the Baseline (Day 1) value. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12

Change From Baseline in the Daytime Somnolence Score, an Item on the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale, at Week 12 Using LOCF

"The MOS Sleep Scale measures most constructs of sleep. The scale has a battery of questions to measure specific aspects of sleep in participants with co-morbidities. The four domains scored from the MOS Sleep Scale were sleep disturbance,' sleep quantity,' sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The scores of the daytime somnolence domain ranged from 1 to 100, with a high score indicating greater daytime somnolence. The assessment was completed at Baseline (Day 1) and end of Weeks, 4, 8, and 12 (or end of Treatment)." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12

Change From Baseline in the Overall Life-Impact Score of the RLS Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire at Week 12 Using LOCF

The Restless Legs Syndrome Quality of Life (RLS-QoL) questionnaire is a disease-specific, participant-rated questionnaire that assesses the impact of RLS on daily life, emotional well-being, social life, and work life of the participants. The RLS-QoL Questionnaire is presented on a 0 (lowest possible score) to 100 (highest possible score) scale. It was completed at Day 1 and at the end of Weeks 4, 8, and 12 (or Early Termination). (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12

Change From Baseline in the Profile of Mood State (POMS) Scale at Week 12 Using LOCF

"The Profile of Mood States (POMS) Brief Form contains 30 adjectives; each participant is asked to rate the degree to which each adjective describes themselves based on how they felt during the past week including the date on which the adjective was rated. The possible ratings range from 0 (Not all all) to 4 (Extremely). The Total Mood Disturbance Score (range of 0 to 120) is obtained by summing the values of six domains. Higher scores indicate a more negative mood disturbance. The POMS was completed at Baseline (Day 1), and at the end of Weeks 4, 8, and 12 (or Early Termination)." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline to End of Treatment (Week 12)

Change From Baseline in the Sleep Disturbance Score, an Item on the MOS Sleep Scale, at Week 12 Using LOCF

"The MOS Sleep Scale measures most constructs of sleep. The scale has a battery of questions to measure specific aspects of sleep in participants with co-morbidities. The four domains scored from the MOS Sleep Scale were sleep disturbance,' sleep quantity,' sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The scores of the sleep disturbance domain ranged from 1 to 100, with a high score indicating greater impairment of sleep. The assessment was completed at Baseline (Day 1) and end of Weeks, 4, 8, and 12 (or end of Treatment)." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12

Change From Baseline to the End of Treatment (Week 12) in the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score Using LOCF

The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity. The scale reflects the participant-reported assessment of primary sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. Items (individually scored from 0 to 4) are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total scale score is a sum of all of the individual item scores and ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. The scale assesses symptoms over the week prior to measurement. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1) and End of Treatment (Week 12)

Change From Baseline to the End of Treatment in Average Daily Total Sleep Time (Hours) Using LOCF

Average daily total sleep time was derived from the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary (PghSD; an instrument with separate components to be completed [self-reported] at bedtime and waketime) as the mean of non-missing total sleep time over the 7 days before each visit, where total sleep time = [(wake up time - lights out time) - time to fall asleep - time awake during the night] in hours. The change was calculated as the end of treatment (Week 12) value minus the Baseline value. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline to End of Treatment (Week 12)

Change From Baseline to the End of Treatment in Average Daily Wake Time (Minutes) After Sleep Onset Using LOCF

Average daily wake time after sleep onset was derived from the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary (PghSD) as the mean of non-missing total hours awake during the night after falling asleep over the 7 days before each visit. The change was calculated as the end of treatment (Week 12) value minus the Baseline value. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline to End of Treatment (Week 12)

Change From Baseline to the End of Week 1 in the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score Using LOCF

The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity. The scale reflects the participant-reported assessment of primary sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. Items (individually scored from 0 to 4) are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total scale score is a sum of all of the individual item scores and ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. The scale assesses symptoms over the week prior to measurement. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline and the End of Week 1

Number of Participants Classsified as Responders on the Investigator-rated CGI-I Scale at Week 12 Using LOCF

"The CGI-I scale is a standardized tool that is widely used in psychopharmacologic trials. For the CGI-I, the investigator was asked to rate the participant's overall change in RLS symptoms from Baseline. Scores ranged from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). Participants who were much improved (score of 2) or very much improved on the CGI-I scale at the end of treatment (Week 12) are classified as Responders." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 12

Number of Participants Who Had an Onset of Response to Treatment at the End of Week 1 Based Upon the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score and the Investigator-rated CGI-I Using LOCF

"The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity. Items (individually scored from 0 to 4) are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total scale score is a sum of all of the individual item scores and ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. Response was defined by an IRLS Rating Scale total score at the end of Week 1 < 15 and at least a 6-point reduction from the participant's Baseline score and an investigator-rated CGI-I response of much improved or very much improved." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: End of Week 1

Number of Participants Who Indicated on the Mood Assessment That Their Mood Was Much Improved or Very Much Improved at Week 12 (End of Treatment) Using LOCF

The Mood Assessment is a non-disease-specific question surveying global change in a participant's overall mood. Participants were asked to rate their overall change in mood since the start of the study by choosing a score in a range from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse). The assessment was completed at Day 1 and the ends of Weeks 4, 8, and 12 or (Early Termination). (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 12

Number of Participants With a Rating of Excellent for the Overall Quality of Sleep in Past Week Measured by the Post-Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ) at the End of Treatment (Week 12) Using LOCF

"The Post-Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ) was designed to evaluate overall sleep quality, ability to function, and RLS symptoms' interference with sleep over the past week. Participants were asked to rate overall sleep quality (as either Excellent, Reasonable, or Poor), ability to function, number of nights with RLS symptoms, number of nights awakened by RLS symptoms, and the number of hours spent awake due to RLS symptoms over the past week." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: End of Treatment (Week 12)

Number of Total Responders to Treatment Based on the Investigator-Rated CGI of Improvement at the End of One Week of Treatment

"The CGI-I scale is a standardized tool that is widely used in psychopharmacologic trials. For the CGI-I, the investigator was asked to rate the participant's overall change in RLS symptoms from Baseline. Scores ranged from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). Participants who were much improved (score of 2) or very much improved on the CGI-I scale at the end of treatment (Week 12) are classified as Responders." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: End of Week 1

The Time to Onset of the First Response to Treatment on the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score and the Investigator-rated CGI-I

The Response was defined by an IRLS Rating Scale total score at the end of Week 1 < 15 and at least a 6-point reduction from the participant's Baseline score and an investigator-rated CGI-I response of much improved or very much improved. The median time to onset is estimated using the product-limit estimation method. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1) to End of Treatment (Week 12)

Time to Onset of the First RLS Symptom From the 24-hour RLS Record Obtained at the End of Treatment (Week 12)

The time to onset of the first RLS symptoms from the 24-hour RLS Record is defined as the length of time from the start of the 24-hour assessment period (8:00 AM) to the time when 50% of participants experienced their first symptom. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 12

Change From Baseline in the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score at Week 12 by Baseline RLS Rating Scale Total Score Category (Baseline RLS Severity) Using LOCF

The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity. The scale reflects the participant-reported assessment of primary sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. Ten items (individually scored from 0 to 4) are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total scale score is a sum of all of the individual item scores and ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. The scale assesses symptoms over the week prior to measurement. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1) and Week 12

Mean Change in the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score From Baseline at Week 12 by RLS Treatment History Using LOCF

The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity. The scale reflects the participant-reported assessment of primary sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. Ten items (individually scored from 0 to 4) are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total scale score is a sum of all of the individual item scores and ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. The scale assesses symptoms over the week prior to measurement. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1) and Week 12

Number of Participants Classified as Investigator-rated CGI-I Scale Responders at Week 12 by RLS Treatment History Using LOCF

"The CGI-I scale is a standardized tool that is widely used in psychopharmacologic trials. For the CGI-I, the investigator was asked to rate the participant's overall change in RLS symptoms from Baseline. Scores ranged from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). Participants who were much improved (score of 2) or very much improved on the CGI-I scale at the end of treatment (Week 12) are classified as Responders." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Basline and Week 12

Number of Participants Classified as Responders to Treatment Based on the Participant-Rated CGI of Improvement at Week 1 and Week 12 (End of Treatment)

"The CGI-I scale is a standardized tool that is widely used in psychopharmacologic trials. For the CGI-I, the investigator was asked to rate the participant's overall change in RLS symptoms from Baseline. Scores ranged from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). Participants who were much improved (score of 2) or very much improved on the CGI-I scale at the end of treatment (Week 12) are classified as Responders." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 1 and Week 12

Number of Participants Classified as Responders With at Least 30% and 50% Improvement in the Average Daily RLS Pain Score Using LOCF

"The Mean Daily RLS pain was assessed by participants reporting whether they experienced any pain associated with RLS in the last 24 hours and rating their pain levels on an 11-point numerical rating scale, with 0 being no pain and 10 the most intense pain imaginable. The assessment was performed for 7 days prior to Baseline and pre-defined visits A Responder is a participant with a score of much improved or very much improved on the investigator rated CGI I Scale at the end of treatment (Week 12 using LOCF)." (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 12

Number of Participants Experiencing No RLS Symptoms in Each of the Seven 4-hour Periods From the 24-hour RLS Record at Week 12 (End of Treatment)

RLS severity ratings were summarized in 6 non-overlapping 4-hour periods beginning at 8 AM. A 4-hour period from 6 PM to 10 PM was also prospectively included to reflect the time frame when the most participants would experience their first symptoms of the day. (NCT00365352)
Timeframe: Week 12

Reviews

4 reviews available for carbamates and Fatigue

Trials

5 trials available for carbamates and Fatigue

Other Studies

8 other studies available for carbamates and Fatigue