Page last updated: 2024-10-16

carbamates and Restless Legs Syndrome

carbamates has been researched along with Restless Legs Syndrome in 35 studies

Restless Legs Syndrome: A disorder characterized by aching or burning sensations in the lower and rarely the upper extremities that occur prior to sleep or may awaken the patient from sleep.

Research Excerpts

ExcerptRelevanceReference
"We hypothesized that restless legs syndrome (RLS), a common neurological sensorimotor disorder of uncomfortable leg sensations that appear at night and interfere with sleep, might be a cause for nighttime agitation in persons with AD."2.94Nighttime Agitation and Restless Legs Syndrome in Persons With Alzheimer's Disease: Study Protocol for a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial (NightRest). ( Allen, R; Fry, L; Gooneratne, N; Hanlon, A; Kovach, C; Loera, A; Lozano, A; Morrison, J; Rangel, A; Richards, K; Wang, YY, 2020)
"Outpatients with RLS (International Restless Legs Syndrome Rating Scale (IRLS) scores ≥15) were randomized (n = 474) and treated (n = 469) in a double-blind manner with once-daily placebo (n = 116), 600 (n = 120), 900 (n = 119) or 1200 (n = 114) mg GEn for 12 weeks."2.78Gabapentin enacarbil in Japanese patients with restless legs syndrome: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. ( Hattori, N; Hirata, K; Inoue, Y; Kuroda, K; Takeuchi, M; Uchimura, N, 2013)
" Using plasma gabapentin concentration data obtained after administration of GEn in 12 phase 1 to 3 GEn studies in healthy adults or patients with RLS (dose range, 300-2400 mg/d), a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed by nonlinear mixed-effect modeling using NONMEM."2.78Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of gabapentin after administration of gabapentin enacarbil. ( Cundy, KC; Lal, R; Lassauzet, ML; Luo, W; Sukbuntherng, J; Tovera, J, 2013)
" International Restless Legs Syndrome Scale (IRLS) score, investigator- and patient-rated Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) total scores and subscores, and short form (SF)-36 subscores were assessed, and adverse events (AEs) were monitored."2.77Long-term efficacy and safety of gabapentin enacarbil in Japanese restless legs syndrome patients. ( Hattori, N; Hirata, K; Inoue, Y; Kuroda, K; Uchimura, N, 2012)
"Because of the subjective nature of Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) symptoms and the impact of these symptoms on sleep, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a prominent role as study endpoints in clinical trials investigating RLS treatments."2.76Validation of the post sleep questionnaire for assessing subjects with restless legs syndrome: results from two double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trials. ( Bhanegaonkar, A; Bharmal, M; Calloway, M; Canafax, DM, 2011)
"Restless legs syndrome is a common neurological condition affecting a substantial portion of the population."2.58Use of α2δ Ligands for Restless Legs Syndrome/Willis Ekbom Disease. ( Faulkner, MA, 2018)
"Few studies have investigated restless legs syndrome (RLS) treatment effects on individual International RLS Study Group Rating Scale (IRLS) items."2.53Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials. ( Ahmed, M; Hays, R; Jaros, MJ; Kim, R; Shang, G; Steven Poceta, J, 2016)
" Bioavailability is greater in gabapentin enacarbil as compared to gabapentin."2.50New treatment options for the management of restless leg syndrome. ( Toro, BE, 2014)
"To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, drug interactions, precautions, dosing recommendations, and patient counseling for gabapentin enacarbil for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in adults."2.48Gabapentin enacarbil for treatment of restless legs syndrome in adults. ( Farver, DK; Hayes, WJ; Lemon, MD, 2012)
" The AEs reported most frequently were somnolence and dizziness; there was a dose-response relationship to these AEs."2.48Dose response of Gabapentin Enacarbil versus placebo in subjects with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome: an integrated analysis of three 12-week studies. ( Barrett, RW; Kavanagh, ST; VanMeter, SA; Warren, S, 2012)
" This allows for once-daily dosing and less variability in serum levels."2.47Gabapentin enacarbil for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS). ( Burke, RA; Faulkner, MA, 2011)
"Adults with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS) often experience painful dysesthesias, which may lead to impaired quality of life."1.43The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Pain Associated with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome in Adults: Pooled Analyses from Three Randomized Controlled Trials. ( Buchfuhrer, M; Ellenbogen, A; Hermanowicz, N; Irving, G; Jaros, MJ; Kim, R; Shang, G, 2016)

Research

Studies (35)

TimeframeStudies, this research(%)All Research%
pre-19900 (0.00)18.7374
1990's0 (0.00)18.2507
2000's3 (8.57)29.6817
2010's30 (85.71)24.3611
2020's2 (5.71)2.80

Authors

AuthorsStudies
Richards, K1
Morrison, J1
Wang, YY1
Rangel, A1
Loera, A1
Hanlon, A1
Lozano, A1
Kovach, C1
Gooneratne, N1
Fry, L1
Allen, R1
Inoue, Y3
Hirata, K3
Hoshino, Y1
Yamaguchi, Y1
Faulkner, MA2
Winkelman, JW2
Jaros, MJ6
Garcia-Borreguero, D2
Cano-Pumarega, I1
Garcia Malo, C1
Cruz Velarde, JA1
Granizo, JJ1
Wanner, V1
Fujishiro, H1
Earley, CJ1
Toro, BE1
Sun, Y1
van Valkenhoef, G1
Morel, T1
Bogan, RK3
Lee, DO3
Buchfuhrer, MJ2
Kim, R5
Shang, G5
Avidan, AY2
Lee, D1
Park, M1
Hermanowicz, N1
Ellenbogen, A1
Irving, G1
Buchfuhrer, M1
Kim, ES1
Deeks, ED1
Ahmed, M2
Hays, R2
Ondo, WG1
Steven Poceta, J1
Merlino, G3
Serafini, A2
Young, JJ1
Robiony, F1
Gigli, GL3
Valente, M3
Kushida, CA3
Becker, PM1
Ellenbogen, AL1
Canafax, DM2
Barrett, RW5
Walters, AS2
Becker, P1
Thein, SG1
Perkins, AT2
Roth, T1
Canafax, D1
Lorenzut, S2
Sommaro, M1
Bornemann, MA1
Trân, PV1
Imamura, S1
Kushida, C1
Bhanegaonkar, A1
Bharmal, M1
Calloway, M1
Schmidt, MH1
Hudson, JD1
DeRossett, SE1
Hill-Zabala, CE1
Ziman, RB1
Poceta, JS1
Uchimura, N2
Kuroda, K2
Hattori, N2
Burke, RA1
Hayes, WJ1
Lemon, MD1
Farver, DK1
de Biase, S1
VanMeter, SA1
Kavanagh, ST1
Warren, S1
Aurora, RN1
Kristo, DA1
Bista, SR1
Rowley, JA1
Zak, RS1
Casey, KR1
Lamm, CI1
Tracy, SL1
Rosenberg, RS1
Kakimoto, S1
Ozawa, T1
Igarashi, K1
Tokuno, T1
Kaku, S1
Seki, N1
Takeuchi, M1
Scott, LJ1
Lal, R1
Sukbuntherng, J1
Luo, W1
Tovera, J1
Lassauzet, ML1
Cundy, KC1

Clinical Trials (6)

Trial Overview

TrialPhaseEnrollmentStudy TypeStart DateStatus
Nighttime Agitation and Restless Legs Syndrome in People With Alzheimer's Disease[NCT03082755]Phase 4156 participants (Anticipated)Interventional2017-07-01Recruiting
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of XP13512 in Patients With Restless Legs Syndrome.[NCT00298623]Phase 3222 participants (Actual)Interventional2006-03-31Completed
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Response Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of XP13512 (GSK1838262) in Patients With Restless Legs Syndrome[NCT01332305]Phase 2217 participants (Actual)Interventional2007-01-31Completed
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of XP13512 in Patients With Restless Legs Syndrome.[NCT00365352]Phase 3325 participants (Actual)Interventional2006-08-31Completed
A Long-Term Study of XP13512 Versus Placebo Treatment Assessing Maintenance of Efficacy and Safety in Patients With Restless Legs Syndrome.[NCT00311363]Phase 3327 participants (Actual)Interventional2006-04-30Completed
ASP8825 Phase ⅡStudy-A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of ASP8825 in Patients With Restless Legs Syndrome[NCT00530530]Phase 2474 participants (Actual)Interventional2007-09-30Completed
[information is prepared from clinicaltrials.gov, extracted Sep-2024]

Trial Outcomes

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

,,,
Interventionng*hour/ml (Mean)
Week 4, n=0, 38, 33, 33, 35Week 12, n=0, 32, 30, 30, 30
GEn 1200 mg96.195.7
GEn 1800 mg141146
GEn 2400 mg176173
GEn 600 mg49.351.4

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

,,,
Interventionnanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) (Mean)
Css, max; Week 4, n=0, 39, 33, 33, 36Css, max; Week 12, n=0, 32, 30, 30, 31Css, min; Week 4, n=0, 39, 33, 33, 36Css, min; Week 12, n=0, 32, 30, 30, 31
GEn 1200 mg7.147.151.371.32
GEn 1800 mg11.412.01.631.60
GEn 2400 mg14.013.32.342.41
GEn 600 mg3.864.140.6900.600

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

,,,
Interventionhours (Mean)
Tmax; Week 4, n=0, 39, 33, 33, 36Tmax; Week 12, n=0, 32, 30, 30, 31T1/2; Week 4, n=0, 38, 33, 33, 35T1/2, Week 12, n=0, 32, 30, 30, 30
GEn 1200 mg8.578.726.676.63
GEn 1800 mg7.618.005.825.89
GEn 2400 mg8.018.136.056.09
GEn 600 mg8.766.965.826.27

"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

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Placebo43
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg86

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-9.8
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-13.0

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo13.6
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg29.1
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg27.7

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

Interventionhours (Mean)
Placebo0.3
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg0.6
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg0.8

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)

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-1.7
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-2.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-2.6

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-2.3
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-3.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-3.5

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-9.7
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-9.8
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-16.1

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo14.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg19.3
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg20.4

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)

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-7.3
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-10.9
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-11.5

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-17.0
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-29.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-30.7

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)

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-9.8
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-13.8

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)

Interventionhours (Mean)
Placebo0.6
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg0.7
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg1.0

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)

Interventionminutes (Mean)
Placebo-12.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-16.4
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-18.5

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

Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
Placebo-6.0
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-9.8
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-8.7

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

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Placebo43
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg83

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

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Placebo13
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg36
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg40

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

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Placebo19
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg35
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg39

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)

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Placebo14
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg24
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg30

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

Interventionresponders (Number)
Placebo26
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg54
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg59

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)

Interventionweeks (Median)
PlaceboNA
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 Milligrams(mg) Taken Orally4.1
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg Taken Orally Once a Day2.1

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

Interventionhours (Median)
Placebo12.8
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg13.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg13.8

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

,,
Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
IRLS Total Score < 17.5IRLS Total Score 17.5 to < 22.5IRLS Total Score 22.5 to < 27.5IRLS Total Score >= 27.5
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-7.9-8.8-15.5-19.6
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-8.9-11.9-15.1-18.2
Placebo-6.3-8.5-9.6-13.3

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

,,
Interventionscores on a scale (Mean)
No RLS Treatment HistoryTreatment terminatedTreatment within 1 month of study start
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg-12.5-17.1-12.1
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg-13.7-12.4-14.6
Placebo-8.8-13.3-10.7

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

,,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
No RLS Treatment HistoryTreatment terminatedTreatment within 1 month of study start
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg571315
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg54918
Placebo26511

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

,,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Responders at the End of Treatment (Week 12)Responders at the End of One Week
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg8352
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg9055
Placebo4620

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

,,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
> or equal to 30% response> or equal to 50% response
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg7666
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg7562
Placebo4841

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

,,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
8 AM to 12 PM12 PM to 4 PM4 PM to 8 PM6 PM to 10 PM8 PM to 12 AM12 AM to 4 AM4 AM to 8 AM
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 1200 mg74696155486772
GEn (XP13512/GSK1838262) 600 mg85746855497479
Placebo52514539273856

Mean Change From Baseline in the MOS Sleep Scale Domain, Sleep Quantity, Score at Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (number of hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and somnolence. The Sleep Quantity Domain score is a participant-rated estimate of the average number of hours of sleep per night over the month. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionhours (Mean)
SB GEn 1200 mg1.0

Mean Change From Baseline in the Overall Quality of Life Impact Score of the RLS Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire at Week 24 (SB Treatment Phase)

The RLS QoL is an 18-item scale assessing the impact of RLS on daily life, emotional well-being, social and work life. Responses range from 1 (not at all/never) to 5 (a lot/all of the time). Ten items contribute to a single summary score, the Overall Life Impact, which is standardized to range from 0-100, with lower scores representing better QoL. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
SB GEn 1200 mg25.7

Mean Change From Baseline to Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) in the Mean Daytime Somnolence Domain Score of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. Responses are recoded so that a higher score reflects more of the attribute, and then converted to a 0 to 100 scale. The daytime somnolence score is based on questions pertaining to feeling drowsy or sleepy, trouble staying awake, and taking naps > 5 minutes. For daytime somnolence, a negative value indicates an improvement. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
SB GEn 1200 mg-21.8

Mean Change From Baseline to Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) in the Mean Sleep Adequacy Domain Score of the MOS Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (number of hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The MOS Sleep Scale sleep adequacy domain is a participant-rated measure of the adequacy of sleep over the month prior to measurement. Questions are scored, and responses are converted to a 0 to 100 scale, with higher scores representing more adequate ratings of sleep. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
SB GEn 1200 mg35.7

Mean Change From Baseline to Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) in the Mean Sleep Disturbance Domain Score of the MOS Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (number of hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. . The MOS Sleep Scale sleep disturbance domain is a participant-rated measure of sleep disturbance over the month prior to the measurement. Questions are scored, and responses are converted to a 0 to 100 scale, with lower scores representing less sleep disturbance. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
SB GEn 1200 mg-35.3

Median Time to Onset of First RLS Symptoms Using the 24-hour RLS Symptom Record at Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase)

The 24-hour RLS Record is a diary in which participants report the presence and severity of RLS symptoms (none, mild, moderate, or severe) for a 24-hour period, in 30-min increments beginning at 8AM on the day prior to the visit. Note: The median is not estimable with Kaplan-Meier methodology when fewer than 50% of participants experience an event; thus, no data are presented for the DB GEn 1200 mg arm. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

Interventionhours (Median)
DB Placebo14.5

Percentage of Participants Who Experienced a Relapse During the Double-Blind Treatment Period

"Relapse was defined as worsening of Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS) symptoms or withdrawal due to lack of efficacy during the 12-week double-blind (DB) treatment period (the period from Randomization on Visit 14 [Week 24] through the end of treatment). Worsening of symptoms was defined as an increase in the total International RLS (IRLS) Scale score by at least 6 or more points relative to the participant's score at Randomization, achieving an IRLS score of at least 15, and an assessment of much worse or very much worse on the investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: DB Treatment Period; Days 169 to 252 (Weeks 24 to 36)

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
DB Placebo22.7
DB GEn 1200 mg9.4

Percentage of Participants Who Responded to Treatment Based on Scores on the Investigator-Rated Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) Scale as a Dichotomous Variable at Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The CGI-C scale is a widely used tool designed to allow clinicians to rate the severity of illness and the change over time based on a seven-point rating scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved and a score of 7 being very much worse compared to baseline. For this endpoint, response on the CGI-C was defined as participants with a rating of no change, (score of 4) minimally improved, (score of 3) much improved, (score of 2) or very much improved (score of 1) compared to Randomization (Week 24)." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
DB Placebo67
DB GEn 1200 mg75

Percentage of Participants Who Responded to Treatment Based on Scores on the Participant-Rated CGI-I at Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The participant-rated CGI-I scale is a self-rated assessment designed to allow participants to rate the change of their disease severity over time based on a seven-point scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved, and a score of 7 being very much worse. Response on the participant-rated CGI-I was defined as a rating of very much improved (score of 1) or much improved (score of 2) compared to Baseline of the SB phase." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
DB Placebo79.4
DB GEn 1200 mg87.5

Change From Randomization to Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) in the Mean Sleep Adequacy Domain Score of the MOS Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (number of hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The MOS Sleep Scale sleep adequacy domain is a participant-rated measure of the adequacy of sleep over the month prior to measurement. Questions are scored, and responses are converted to a 0 to 100 scale, with higher scores representing more adequate ratings of sleep. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
RandomizationWeek 36Change from Randomization to Week 36
DB GEn 1200 mg74.670.3-4.3
DB Placebo73.361.6-11.6

Change From Randomization to Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) in the Mean Sleep Quantity Domain Score of the MOS Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (number of hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The Sleep Quantity Domain score is a participant-rated estimate of the average number of hours of sleep per night over the month. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionhours (Mean)
RandomizationWeek 36Change from Randomization to Week 36
DB Placebo7.06.8-0.2
GEn 1200 mg7.06.9-0.1

Change From Randomization to Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) in the RLS Quality of Life (QoL) Overall Life-Impact Score

The RLS QoL is an 18-item scale assessing the impact of RLS on daily life, emotional well-being, social and work life. Responses range from 1 (not at all/never) to 5 (a lot/all of the time). Ten items contribute to a single summary score, the Overall Life Impact, which is standardized to range from 0-100, with lower scores representing better QoL. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
RandomizationWeek 36Change from Randomization to Week 36
DB GEn 1200 mg94.392.1-2.2
DB Placebo94.189.9-4.2

Mean Change From Baseline in the IRLS Scale Total Score at Week 24 (SB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of disease severity. The scale reflects participant-reported assessment of sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. In addition, items are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. Total score ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Days 1 to 168 (Baseline to Week 24 of SB Phase)

Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
BaselineWeek 24Change from Baseline to Week 24
SB GEn 1200 mg24.79.2-15.5

Mean Change From Randomization to Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) in the Mean Daytime Somnolence Domain Score of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. Responses are recoded so that a higher score reflects more of the attribute, and then converted to a 0 to 100 scale. The daytime somnolence score is based on questions pertaining to feeling drowsy or sleepy, trouble staying awake, and taking naps > 5 minutes. For daytime somnolence, a negative value indicates an improvement. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
RandomizationWeek 36Change from Randomization to Week 36
DB GEn 1200 mg11.012.61.5
DB Placebo11.815.53.8

Mean Change From Randomization to Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) in the Mean Sleep Disturbance Domain Score of the MOS Sleep Scale Using LOCF

The MOS Sleep Scale is a participant-rated non-disease-specific measure with questions relating to four areas related to sleep: quantity (number of hours slept), sleep disturbance, sleep adequacy, and daytime somnolence. The MOS Sleep Scale sleep disturbance domain is a participant-rated measure of sleep disturbance over the month prior to the measurement. Questions are scored, and responses are converted to a 0 to 100 scale, with lower scores representing less sleep disturbance. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
RandomizationWeek 36Change from Randomization to Week 36
DB GEn 1200 mg18.821.02.3
DB Placebo16.726.910.2

Mean Change From Randomization to Week 36 (or End of Treatment) in the IRLS Rating Scale (IRLS) Total Score Using Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)

The IRLS Rating scale is a measure of RLS disease severity and reflects the participant-reported assessment of primary sensory and motor features and associated sleep problems in RLS. Items are included that assess the impact of symptoms on participants' mood, daily life, and activities. The total score ranges from 0-40 points, with 40 being the most severe. The scale assesses symptoms over the week prior to measurement. LOCF: Missing data (MD) values were imputed using the last non-missing observation prior to the visit with MD; randomization visit data could be carried forward. (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionpoints on a scale (Mean)
RandomizationWeek 36Mean change from Randomization to Week 36
DB GEn 1200 mg5.17.01.9
DB Placebo5.39.23.9

Number of Participants in Each Category of the Investigator-Rated CGI-C at Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The CGI scale is a widely used tool designed to allow clinicians to rate the severity of illness and the change over time based on a seven-point rating scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved and a score of 7 being very much worse compared to baseline." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Very much improved (score of 1)Much improved (score of 2)Minimally improved (score of 3)No change (score of 4)Minimally worse (score of 5)Much worse (score of 6)Very much worse (score of 7)
DB GEn 1200 mg10315441392
DB Placebo45124414117

Number of Participants in Each Category of the Investigator-Rated CGI-I at Week 24/End of Treatment (SB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The CGI-I scale is a widely used tool designed to allow clinicians to rate the severity of illness and the change over time based on a seven-point rating scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved and a score of 7 being very much worse compared to baseline." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Very Much Improved (score of 1)Much Improved (score of 2)Minimally Improved (score of 3)No change (score of 4)Minimally worse (score of 5)Much Worse (score of 6)Very Much Worse (score of 7)
SB GEn 1200 mg170782825442

Number of Participants in Each Category of the Participant-Rated CGI-I at Week 24/End of Treatment (SB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The participant-rated CGI-I scale is a self-rated assessment designed to allow participants to rate the change of their disease severity over time based on a seven-point rating scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved and a score of 7 being very much worse compared to baseline." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Very Much Improved (score of 1)Much Improved (score of 2)Minimally Improved (score of 3)No Change (score of 4)Minimally Worse (score of 5)Much Worse (score of 6)Very Much Worse (score of 7)
SB GEn 1200 mg163823816702

Number of Participants in Each Category of the Participant-Rated CGI-I Scale at Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The participant-rated CGI-I scale is a self-rated assessment designed to allow participants to rate the change of their disease severity over time based on a seven-point scale, with a score of 1 being very much improved and a score of 7 being very much worse compared to baseline." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Very much improved (score of 1)Much improved (score of 2)Minimally improved (score of 3)No change (score of 4)Minimally worse (score of 5)Much worse (score of 6)Very much worse (score of 7)
DB GEn 1200 mg602446011
DB Placebo473078311

Number of Participants With no Reported RLS Symptoms (Sx) During Each of the 4-hour Periods From the 24-hour RLS Record at Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase)

In the 24-hour RLS Record (diary), participants report the presence and severity of RLS symptoms (none, mild, moderate, or severe) for a 24-hour period, in 30-minute increments. The period was divided into 7 four-hr intervals (8 AM to 12 PM, 12 to 4 PM, 4 to 8 PM, 6 to 10 PM, 8 to Midnight, Midnight to 4 AM, 4 to 8 AM) (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
8 AM to 12 PM, Randomization, n=96, 958 AM to 12 PM, Week 36, n=87, 8912 PM to 4 PM, Randomization, n=96, 9512 PM to 4 PM, Week 36, n=87, 894 PM to 8 PM, Randomization, n=96, 954 PM to 8 PM, Week 36, n=87, 896 PM to 10 PM, Randomization, n=96, 956 PM to 10 PM, Week 36, n=87, 898 PM to 12 AM, Randomization, n=96, 958 PM to 12 AM, Week 36, n=87, 8912 AM to 4 AM, Randomization, n=96, 9512 AM to 4 AM, Week 36, n=87, 894 AM to 8 AM, Randomization, n=96, 954 AM to 8 AM, Week 36, n=87, 89
DB GEn 1200mg8883857868726162596179778380
DB Placebo8372857173686653624182668367

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ) Responses to the Question Regarding Their Ability to Function in the Week Prior to Measurement at Randomization and Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Randomization, ExcellentRandomization, GoodRandomization, ModerateRandomization, PoorWeek 36, ExcellentWeek 36, GoodWeek 36, ModerateWeek 36, Poor
DB GEn 1200 mg632841533283
DB Placebo534220444391

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire (PSQ) Responses to the Question Regarding Their Overall Quality of Sleep in the Week Prior to Measurement at Randomization and Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Randomization, ExcellentRandomization, ReasonableRandomization, PoorWeek 36, ExcellentWeek 36, ReasonableWeek 36, Poor
DB GEn 1200 mg43467384612
DB Placebo38563295117

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Ability to Function in the Week Prior to Measurement at Baseline and Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Baseline, ExcellentBaseline, GoodBaseline, ModerateBaseline, PoorWeek 24, ExcellentWeek 24, GoodWeek 24, ModerateWeek 24, Poor
SB GEn 1200 mg20124141261451272910

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Number of Awakenings During Night Due to RLS Symptoms in the Week Prior to Measurement at Randomization and Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Randomization, 0 timesRandomization, 1-2 timesRandomization, 3-4 timesRandomization, 5 or more timesWeek 36, 0 timesWeek 36, 1-2 timesWeek 36, 3-4 timesWeek 36, 5 or more times
DB GEn 1200 mg722211682251
DB Placebo732220533572

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Number of Awakenings During the Night Due to RLS Symptoms in the Week Prior to Measurement at Baseline and Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Baseline, 0 timesBaseline, 1-2 timesBaseline, 3-4 timesBaseline, 5 or more timesWeek 24, 0 timesWeek 24, 1-2 timesWeek 24, 3-4 timesWeek 24, 5 or more times
SB GEn 1200 mg261311134118898187

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Number of Hours Awake Per Night Due to RLS Symptoms in the Week Prior to Measurement at Baseline and Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Baseline, 0 hours (hr)Baseline, less than 1 hrBaseline, 1 hr to less than 2 hrBaseline, 2 hr to less than 3 hrBaseline, 3 or more hrWeek 24, 0 hrWeek 24, less than 1 hrWeek 24, 1 hr to less than 2 hrWeek 24, 2 hr to less than 3 hrWeek 24, 3 or more hr
SB GEn 1200 mg267810760401886337176

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Number of Hours Awake Per Night Due to RLS Symptoms in the Week Prior to Measurement at Randomization and Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Randomization, 0 hours (hr)Randomization, less than 1 hrRandomization, 1 hr to less than 2 hrRandomization, 2 hr to less than 3 hrRandomization, 3 or more hrWeek 36, 0 hrWeek 36, less than 1 hrWeek 36, 1 hr to less than 2 hrWeek 36, 2 hr to less than 3 hrWeek 36, 3 or more hr
DB GEn 1200 mg72165306817830
DB Placebo731472153241523

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Number of Nights With RLS Symptoms in the Week Prior to Measurement at Baseline and Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Baseline, 0 nightsBaseline, 1-2 nightsBaseline 3-4 nightsBaseline 5-6 nightsBaseline, 7 nightsWeek 24, 0 nightsWeek 24, 1-2 nightsWeek 24, 3-4 nightsWeek 24, 5-6 nightsWeek 24, 7 nights
SB GEn 1200 mg113612215110698372446

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Number of Nights With RLS Symptoms in the Week Prior to Measurement at Randomization and Week 36 (DB Treatment Phase) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Randomization (Week 24) and Week 36 (or end of DB treatment)

,
Interventionparticipants (Number)
Randomization, 0 nightsRandomization, 1-2 nightsRandomization, 3-4 nightsRandomization, 5-6 nightsRandomization, 7 nightsWeek 36, 0 nightsWeek 36, 1-2 nightsWeek 36, 3-4 nightsWeek 36, 5-6 nightsWeek 36, 7 nights
DB GEn 1200 mg3836115641301267
DB Placebo4735834303017614

Number of Participants With the Indicated Post-Sleep Questionnaire Responses to the Question Regarding the Overall Quality of Sleep in the Week Prior to Measurement at Baseline and Week 24 (SB Treatment Period) Using LOCF

"The PSQ is designed to evaluate sleep quality, ability to function, and the degree to which RLS symptoms interfere with sleep. Participants rated overall sleep quality and their ability to function on scales ranging from excellent to poor and were asked to provide the number of nights they experienced RLS symptoms and the number of times/hours they awoke at night during the week prior to the measurement." (NCT00311363)
Timeframe: Baseline and Day 168 or Week 24/End of Treatment of SB Treatment Phase

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Baseline, ExcellentBaseline, ReasonableBaseline, PoorWeek 24, ExcellentWeek 24, ReasonableWeek 24, Poor
SB GEn 1200 mg39721110216445

Reviews

14 reviews available for carbamates and Restless Legs Syndrome

ArticleYear
Use of α2δ Ligands for Restless Legs Syndrome/Willis Ekbom Disease.
    CNS drugs, 2018, Volume: 32, Issue:2

    Topics: Animals; Anticonvulsants; Calcium Channels; Carbamates; Gabapentin; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans;

2018
Latest guidelines and advances for treatment of restless legs syndrome.
    The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 2014, Volume: 75, Issue:4

    Topics: Amines; Analgesics, Opioid; Carbamates; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Dopamine Agonists; Gabapentin;

2014
New treatment options for the management of restless leg syndrome.
    The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, 2014, Volume: 46, Issue:4

    Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic;

2014
Gabapentin Enacarbil: A Review in Restless Legs Syndrome.
    Drugs, 2016, Volume: 76, Issue:8

    Topics: Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans;

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Individual Items of the International Restless Legs Study Group Rating Scale and Post-sleep Questionnaire in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome: Pooled Analysis of 3 Randomized Trials.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2016, Volume: 38, Issue:7

    Topics: Carbamates; Dizziness; Double-Blind Method; Fatigue; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Randomized Con

2016
Gabapentin enacarbil in restless legs syndrome.
    Drugs of today (Barcelona, Spain : 1998), 2010, Volume: 46, Issue:1

    Topics: Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Delayed-Action Preparations; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans;

2010
Gabapentin enacarbil (XP13512/GSK1838262) as an alternative treatment to dopaminergic agents for restless legs syndrome.
    Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy, 2010, Volume: 11, Issue:11

    Topics: Carbamates; Dopamine Agents; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Restless Legs Syndrome

2010
Gabapentin enacarbil for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS).
    Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy, 2011, Volume: 12, Issue:18

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Calcium Channels; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Aci

2011
Gabapentin enacarbil for treatment of restless legs syndrome in adults.
    The Annals of pharmacotherapy, 2012, Volume: 46, Issue:2

    Topics: Adult; Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Carbamates; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Prodrugs; Res

2012
ADMET considerations for restless leg syndrome drug treatments.
    Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology, 2012, Volume: 8, Issue:10

    Topics: Amines; Anticonvulsants; Benzothiazoles; Carbamates; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Dopamine Agents; D

2012
Dose response of Gabapentin Enacarbil versus placebo in subjects with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome: an integrated analysis of three 12-week studies.
    CNS drugs, 2012, Sep-01, Volume: 26, Issue:9

    Topics: Carbamates; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dose-Response R

2012
The treatment of restless legs syndrome and periodic limb movement disorder in adults--an update for 2012: practice parameters with an evidence-based systematic review and meta-analyses: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline.
    Sleep, 2012, Aug-01, Volume: 35, Issue:8

    Topics: Academies and Institutes; Benzothiazoles; Cabergoline; Carbamates; Dopamine Agents; Ergolines; Evide

2012
[Pharmacological and clinical profile of gabapentin enacarbil: a novel drug for the treatment of restless legs syndrome].
    Nihon yakurigaku zasshi. Folia pharmacologica Japonica, 2012, Volume: 140, Issue:2

    Topics: Animals; Biological Availability; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Hum

2012
Gabapentin enacarbil: in patients with restless legs syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2012, Volume: 26, Issue:12

    Topics: Animals; Carbamates; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Excitato

2012

Trials

15 trials available for carbamates and Restless Legs Syndrome

ArticleYear
Nighttime Agitation and Restless Legs Syndrome in Persons With Alzheimer's Disease: Study Protocol for a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial (NightRest).
    Research in gerontological nursing, 2020, 11-01, Volume: 13, Issue:6

    Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Anxiety; Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid;

2020
Difference in background factors between responders to gabapentin enacarbil treatment and responders to placebo: pooled analyses of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in Japanese patients with restless legs syndrome.
    Sleep medicine, 2021, Volume: 85

    Topics: Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Japan; Restless Legs Syndrome; Tre

2021
Predictors of clinical response in a double-blind placebo controlled crossover trial of gabapentin enacarbil for restless legs syndrome.
    Sleep medicine, 2018, Volume: 48

    Topics: Carbamates; Cross-Over Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma

2018
Reduced response to gabapentin enacarbil in restless legs syndrome following long-term dopaminergic treatment.
    Sleep medicine, 2019, Volume: 55

    Topics: Aged; Carbamates; Cross-Over Studies; Dopamine Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Sche

2019
Treatment response to sleep, pain, and mood disturbance and their correlation with sleep disturbance in adult patients with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome: Pooled analyses from 3 trials of gabapentin enacarbil.
    Annals of medicine, 2015, Volume: 47, Issue:3

    Topics: Adult; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyric

2015
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Quality of Life and Mood Outcomes in a Pooled Population of Adult Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:4

    Topics: Affect; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2016
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of XP13512/GSK1838262 in patients with RLS.
    Neurology, 2009, Feb-03, Volume: 72, Issue:5

    Topics: Adult; Amines; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Carbamates; Central Nervous System; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids;

2009
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of XP13512/GSK1838262 in the treatment of patients with primary restless legs syndrome.
    Sleep, 2009, Volume: 32, Issue:2

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Cross-Over Studies; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dose-Response Relationship

2009
Long-term maintenance treatment of restless legs syndrome with gabapentin enacarbil: a randomized controlled study.
    Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2010, Volume: 85, Issue:6

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; Drug Tolerance; Female; gamma-Amino

2010
Validation of the post sleep questionnaire for assessing subjects with restless legs syndrome: results from two double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trials.
    BMC neurology, 2011, Apr-28, Volume: 11

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome

2011
Validation of the post sleep questionnaire for assessing subjects with restless legs syndrome: results from two double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trials.
    BMC neurology, 2011, Apr-28, Volume: 11

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome

2011
Validation of the post sleep questionnaire for assessing subjects with restless legs syndrome: results from two double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trials.
    BMC neurology, 2011, Apr-28, Volume: 11

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome

2011
Validation of the post sleep questionnaire for assessing subjects with restless legs syndrome: results from two double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trials.
    BMC neurology, 2011, Apr-28, Volume: 11

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Double-Blind Method; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Middle Aged; Outcome

2011
Randomized polysomnography study of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with restless legs syndrome.
    Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 2011, Volume: 26, Issue:11

    Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Cross-Over Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Bl

2011
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil in subjects with restless legs syndrome.
    Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2011, Jun-15, Volume: 7, Issue:3

    Topics: Analysis of Variance; Carbamates; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Dizziness; Dose-Response Relati

2011
Long-term efficacy and safety of gabapentin enacarbil in Japanese restless legs syndrome patients.
    Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry, 2012, Mar-30, Volume: 36, Issue:2

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticonvulsants; Asian People; Carbamates; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2012
Gabapentin enacarbil in Japanese patients with restless legs syndrome: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.
    Current medical research and opinion, 2013, Volume: 29, Issue:1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Asian People; Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-B

2013
Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of gabapentin after administration of gabapentin enacarbil.
    Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013, Volume: 53, Issue:1

    Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amines; Carbamates; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Female;

2013

Other Studies

6 other studies available for carbamates and Restless Legs Syndrome

ArticleYear
Effects of gabapentin enacarbil on restless legs syndrome and leg pain in dementia with Lewy bodies.
    Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society, 2014, Volume: 14, Issue:2

    Topics: Aged; Carbamates; Dopamine Agonists; Female; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Hallucinations; Humans; Japan;

2014
A mixed treatment comparison of gabapentin enacarbil, pramipexole, ropinirole and rotigotine in moderate-to-severe restless legs syndrome.
    Current medical research and opinion, 2014, Volume: 30, Issue:11

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Bayes Theorem; Benzothiazoles; Carbamates; Dopamine Agonists; Female; gamma-Aminobutyri

2014
The Effect of Gabapentin Enacarbil on Pain Associated with Moderate-to-Severe Primary Restless Legs Syndrome in Adults: Pooled Analyses from Three Randomized Controlled Trials.
    CNS drugs, 2016, Volume: 30, Issue:5

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbamates; Dopamine Agonists; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; F

2016
Efficacy of gabapentin enacarbil in adult patients with severe primary restless legs syndrome.
    Sleep medicine, 2016, Volume: 19

    Topics: Carbamates; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid;

2016
Gabapentin enacarbil, a gabapentin prodrug for the treatment of the neurological symptoms associated with disorders such as restless legs syndrome.
    Current opinion in investigational drugs (London, England : 2000), 2009, Volume: 10, Issue:1

    Topics: Animals; Carbamates; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Dose-R

2009
Gabapentin encarbil (Horizant) for restless leg syndrome.
    The Medical letter on drugs and therapeutics, 2011, Sep-05, Volume: 53, Issue:1372

    Topics: Carbamates; Delayed-Action Preparations; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid; Humans; Restless Legs Syndrome

2011