Search

Objectives: We used a high-throughput assay of 5000 plasma proteins to identify biomarkers associated with periodic limb movements (PLM) and restless legs syndrome (RLS) in adults., Methods: Participants (n = 1410) of the Stanford Technology Analytics and Genomics in Sleep (STAGES) study had blood collected, completed a sleep questionnaire, and underwent overnight polysomnography with the scoring of PLMs. An aptamer-based array (SomaScan) was used to quantify 5000 proteins in plasma. A second cohort (n = 697) that had serum assayed using a previous iteration of SomaScan (1300 proteins) was used for replication and in a combined analysis (n = 2107). A 5% false discovery rate was used to assess significance., Results: Multivariate analyses in STAGES identified 68 proteins associated with the PLM index after correction for multiple testing (ie, base model). Most significantly decreased proteins were iron-related and included Hepcidin (LEAP-1), Ferritin, and Ferritin light chain. Most significantly increased proteins included RANTES, Cathepsin A, and SULT 1A3. Of 68 proteins significant in the base model, 17 were present in the 1300 panel, and 15 of 17 were replicated. The most significant proteins in the combined model were Hepcidin (LEAP-1), Cathepsin A, Ferritin, and RANTES. Exploration of proteins in RLS versus non-RLS identified Cathepsin Z, Heme oxygenase 2 (HO-2), Interleukin-17A (upregulated in the combined cohort), and Megalin (upregulated in STAGES only) although results were less significant than for proteins associated with PLM index., Conclusions: These results confirm the association of PLM with low iron status and suggest the involvement of catabolic enzymes in PLM/RLS., (Copyright © 2024 National Sleep Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Recent cross-sectional studies suggest that restless legs syndrome (RLS) may be associated with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity or risk factors. We evaluated whether primary or secondary RLS was associated with an increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease in a retrospective cohort study within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC)., Methods: We identified members of KPNC with primary RLS and secondary RLS between 1999 and 2008 by an algorithm that incorporated longitudinal clinical records related to the diagnosis and treatment of RLS and comorbidities. We then matched each RLS case with up to 50 individuals with no clinical records of RLS by age, sex, race/ethnicity, zip code, and membership duration. For the analyses we excluded any individual with coronary artery disease (CAD: angina, acute myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization procedure, CAD death), CVD (CAD plus stroke), and hypertension at baseline. New cardiovascular events were determined from clinical records. Follow-up ended at an outcome event, disenrollment from KPNC, or death, whichever occurred earliest. There were over 473,358 person-y of follow-up in this cohort analysis with a mean follow-up time of 3.91 y and range from 6 mo to 12 y. Survival analysis techniques, including survival curves and proportional hazard regression models, were used to assess the association between RLS status and CVD., Results: There were 7,621 primary RLS and 4,507 secondary RLS cases identified and included in the study. In general, primary RLS cases were younger and had less comorbidity than secondary RLS cases. During the follow-up period, CVD was diagnosed in 478 primary RLS cohort members, CAD was diagnosed in 310, and hypertension events were identified in 1,466. Diagnosis in secondary RLS cohort members was made during the follow-up period with 451, 338, and 598 CVD, CAD, and hypertension events, respectively. Subjects with primary RLS had a similar risk of incident CVD (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.86-1.04) and CAD (HR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.89-1.13) to the comparison cohort, with a slight elevation in the risk of hypertension events (HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.12-1.25), after multivariable adjustment. Individuals classified as secondary RLS had a significant increased risk of CVD (HR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.21-1.46), CAD (HR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.25-1.56), and hypertension (HR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.18-1.40)., Conclusion: Primary restless legs syndrome (RLS) was not associated with new-onset cardiovascular disease (CVD) or coronary artery disease (CAD) but was associated with a slight increased risk of hypertension. In contrast, secondary RLS was associated with an increased risk of CVD, CAD, and hypertension., (© 2015 Associated Professional Sleep Societies, LLC.)

Objective: To assess maintenance of efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil in patients with moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS)., Patients and Methods: This study (conducted April 18, 2006, to November 14, 2007) comprised a 24-week, single-blind (SB) treatment phase (gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg) followed by a 12-week randomized, double-blind (DB) phase. Responders from the SB phase (patients with improvements on the International Restless Legs Scale [IRLS] and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at week 24 and stable while taking a gabapentin enacarbil dose of 1200 mg for at least 1 month before randomization) were randomized to gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg, or placebo once daily at 5 pm with food. The primary end point was the proportion of patients experiencing relapse (worse scores on the IRLS and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change scale on 2 consecutive visits at least 1 week apart or withdrawal because of lack of efficacy) during the DB phase., Results: A total of 221 of 327 patients completed the SB phase, 194 (96 in the gabapentin enacarbil group and 98 in the placebo group) were randomized to DB treatment, and 168 (84 in the gabapentin enacarbil group and 84 in the placebo group) completed the DB phase. A significantly smaller proportion of patients treated with gabapentin enacarbil (9/96 [9%]) experienced relapse compared with the placebo-treated patients (22/97 [23%]) (odds ratio, 0.353; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.8; P=.02). Somnolence and dizziness were the most common adverse events. One death occurred (unintentional choking during the SB phase) and was judged as being unrelated to the study drug. No clinically relevant changes were observed in laboratory values, in vital signs, or on electrocardiograms., Conclusion: Gabapentin enacarbil, 1200 mg, maintained improvements in RLS symptoms compared with placebo and showed long-term tolerability in adults with moderate to severe primary RLS for up to 9 months of treatment.

Aim: Few studies have examined the prevalence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in Asian populations, with existing data suggesting substantially lower rates of RLS in Asian populations compared with Caucasians. However, varying definitions of RLS as well as problematic methodology make conclusions about RLS prevalence in Asian populations difficult to interpret. The current study therefore examines the prevalence of RLS in Taiwanese adults., Methods: Subjects were 4011 Taiwanese residents over the age of 15 years. Data was collected using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system between 25 October 2006 and 6 November 2006., Results: The prevalence of RLS in Taiwanese adults was found to be 1.57%. In addition, individuals with RLS had a higher body mass index (BMI) and incidence of chronic conditions and comorbidities including insomnia, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, arthritis, backache and mental illness. Women with RLS also had a higher incidence of post-menopausal syndrome., Conclusion: Findings from the current study suggest that the prevalence of RLS in Taiwan is 1.57% by telephone interview. Individuals with RLS had a higher incidence of chronic insomnia and many other chronic disorders. The association and long-term consequences of RLS with these chronic disorders warrants further longitudinal observation and study.

Background: A reliable and valid questionnaire for screening restless legs syndrome (RLS) is essential for determining accurate estimates of disease frequency. In a 2002 NIH-sponsored workshop, experts suggested three mandatory questions for identifying RLS in epidemiologic studies. We evaluated the reliability and validity of this RLS-NIH questionnaire in a community-based sample and concurrently developed and evaluated the utility of an expanded screening questionnaire, the RLS-EXP., Methods: The study was conducted at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California and the Stanford University Sleep Clinic. We evaluated test-retest reliability in a random sample of subjects with prior physician-assigned RLS (n=87), subjects with conditions frequently misclassified as RLS (n=31), and healthy subjects (n=9). Validity of both instruments was evaluated in a random sample of 32 subjects, and in-person examination by two RLS specialists was used as the gold standard., Results: For the first three RLS-NIH questions, the kappa statistic for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.5 to 1.0, and sensitivity and specificity was 86% and 45%, respectively. For the subset of five questions on RLS-EXP that encompassed cardinal features for diagnosing RLS, kappas were 0.4-0.8, and sensitivity and specificity were 81% and 73%, respectively., Conclusions: Sensitivity of RLS-NIH is good; however, the specificity of the instrument is poor when examined in a sample that over-represents subjects with conditions that are commonly misclassified as RLS. Specificity can be improved by including separate questions on cardinal features, as used in the RLS-EXP, and by including a few questions that identify RLS mimics, thereby reducing false positives., (2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Assess the efficacy and tolerability of gabapentin enacarbil (GEn), a transported prodrug of gabapentin with improved gabapentin exposure, in adults with moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome., Methods: This 14-day, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of GEn at 1200 or 600 mg or placebo taken once daily, evaluated the mean change from baseline International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) total score at end of treatment (day 14:primary comparison, GEn at 1200 mg vs placebo). Secondary end points included Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale outcomes at day 14., Results: Ninety-five subjects were randomized (GEn: 1200 mg, n = 33 and 600 mg, n = 29; placebo, n = 33); 2 subjects (GEn at 1200 mg) withdrew because of adverse events. At day 14,the mean (SD) change from baseline IRLS total score was significantly greater with GEn at 1200 mg (-16.1 [7.93]) compared with placebo (-8.9 [7.72]; adjusted mean treatment difference, -7.2; P < 0.0001). Investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale responses also significantly favored GEn at 1200 mg compared with placebo (P G 0.0001).The mean (SD) change from baseline IRLS total score with GEn at 600 mg at day 14 was -9.1 (5.95), similar to placebo. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence (GEn: 1200 mg, 36% and 600 mg, 14%; placebo,15%) and dizziness (GEn: 1200 mg, 18% and 600 mg, 14%; placebo, 3%), most of which were rated mild or moderate in intensity., Conclusions: Gabapentin enacarbil at 1200 mg significantly improved restless legs syndrome symptoms compared with placebo. Efficacy outcomes for GEn at 600 mg were similar to placebo. Both GEn doses were generally well tolerated.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of the nondopaminergic agent XP13512/GSK1838262 in adults with moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS)., Methods: Patient Improvements in Vital Outcomes following Treatment in Restless Legs Syndrome I was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of XP13512 1,200 mg or placebo taken once daily at 5:00 pm with food. Coprimary endpoints were mean change from baseline International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) total score and proportion of investigator-rated responders (very much improved or much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale) at week 12 (last observation carried forward). Tolerability was assessed using adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory parameters., Results: A total of 222 patients were randomized (XP13512 = 114, placebo = 108) and 192 patients (XP13512 = 100, placebo = 92) completed the study. At week 12, the mean change from baseline IRLS total score was greater with XP13512 (-13.2) compared with placebo (-8.8). Analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline score and pooled site, demonstrated a mean treatment difference of -4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.2 to -1.9; p = 0.0003). More patients treated with XP13512 (76.1%) were responders compared with placebo (38.9%; adjusted OR 5.1; 95% CI, 2.8 to 9.2; p < 0.0001). Significant treatment effects for both coprimary measures were identified at week 1, the earliest time point measured. The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence (XP13512 27%, placebo 7%) and dizziness (XP13512 20%, placebo 5%), which were mild to moderate in intensity and generally remitted., Conclusions: XP13512 1,200 mg, taken once daily, significantly improved restless legs syndrome (RLS) symptoms compared with placebo and was generally well tolerated in adults with moderate to severe primary RLS.

Study Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of XP13512/ GSK1838262, an investigational nondopaminergic agent for the treatment of moderate-to-severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS)., Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial., Setting: Nine US clinical sites., Patients: Thirty-eight treatment-naive subjects with RLS (mean +/- SD age 50.1 +/- 13.2 years)., Interventions: XP13512 1800 mg/day followed by placebo or placebo followed by XP13512 1800 mg/day for 14 days, with a 7-day washout between treatment periods., Measurements and Results: The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline International RLS Study Group rating scale (IRLS) total score on Day 14, analyzed using analysis of variance with sequence, period, and treatment as fixed effects and subjects within sequence as a random effect. XP13512 significantly reduced IRLS total score on Day 14 compared with placebo (mean +/- SD: XP13512 -12.1 +/-6.5, placebo -1.9 +/- 6.3; P < 0.0001). Polysomnographic data showed that XP13512 significantly improved sleep architecture on Day 14 compared with placebo (mean +/- SD change from baseline sleep time [minutes]: stage 1: XP13512 -9.8 +/- 23.9, placebo 0.4 +/-23.2; adjusted P<0.0054, nominal P<0.0001; stage 3/4 (slow-wave sleep): XP13512 22.8 +/- 40.8, placebo 1.4 +/- 34.3; adjusted P=0.0092, nominal P=0.0002). The most frequently reported adverse events were somnolence (XP13512 30.6%, placebo 2.8%) and dizziness (XP13512 27.8%, placebo 5.6%)., Conclusions: XP13512 1800 mg/day significantly reduced RLS symptoms, improved sleep, and was generally well tolerated in subjects with moderate-to-severe primary RLS across 14 days of treatment.

Objectives: To investigate the effect of twice-daily ropinirole in patients with early evening restless legs syndrome (RLS) symptoms, particularly focusing on the relationship of patient- and physician-rated assessment of treatment outcomes., Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 12-week, flexible-dose study, patients with primary RLS, with symptom onset no earlier than 5 PM and a baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group Rating Scale (IRLS) total score > or = 20 received ropinirole 0.5 to 6.0 mg/d twice daily in equally divided doses, or placebo. First dose was 1 hour before the usual onset of symptoms; second dose was 3 to 8 hours after the first. Primary end point: change from baseline in IRLS total score at week 12 last observation carried forward (LOCF). Key secondary end points: proportion of responders (rated "very much improved" or "much improved") on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement and the Patient Global Improvement scales., Results: Improvements in IRLS total score were statistically significantly greater for ropinirole (n = 175), compared with placebo (n = 184) at all assessment points beginning at day 3 through to week 12 LOCF (P < 0.001). A statistically significantly greater proportion of patients were classified as responders on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at all assessment points from day 3 through week 12 LOCF (P < 0.001) and on the Patient Global Improvement scale at all assessment points from day 1 (P = 0.013) through day 7 LOCF (P < or = 0.05 for days 2-7 LOCF) and at week 12 LOCF (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Ropinirole is associated with consistent early and sustained improvements in the symptoms of RLS, as rated by patients and physicians.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a generally underdiagnosed and undertreated condition. It is a common cause of sleep disturbance that can severely disrupt normal life functioning. However, because of the failure to recognize RLS as a distinct disorder, clinicians have minimized the significance of the morbidity experienced by some patients. A positive family history is present in >50% of patients with RLS. Indeed, a person with RLS is 3 to 6 times more likely to have a positive family history of RLS than is an individual who does not have the disease. The differential diagnosis of RLS includes both movement and sleep disorders. Establishing an accurate diagnosis is crucial because effective treatment is available. In 2002, RLS experts revised diagnostic criteria and established 4 essential criteria for the diagnosis. Assessing the most bothersome symptoms and quantifying the severity of RLS are important because not all patients require medical therapy. Moreover, therapy may vary according to which symptom represents the major problem.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pramipexole in patients with moderate to severe restless legs syndrome (RLS) METHODS: The authors conducted a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of fixed doses of pramipexole (0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mg/day). Patients (N = 344) were up-titrated to their randomized dose over 3 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints were patient ratings of symptom severity on the International RLS Study Group Rating Scale (IRLS) and clinician ratings of improvement on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale. Secondary efficacy endpoints included visual analogue ratings of sleep and quality of life (QOL) RESULTS: By both primary measures, pramipexole was superior to placebo. For IRLS, the adjusted mean (SE) change from baseline to week 12 was -9.3 (1.0) for placebo, -12.8 (1.0) for 0.25 mg/day, -13.8 (1.0) for 0.50 mg/day, and -14.0 (1.0) for 0.75 mg/day (all p < 0.01). Similarly, pramipexole increased the percentage of patients with a CGI-I rating of "very much improved" or "much improved" at the end of the trial (51.2% for placebo and 74.7%, 67.9%, and 72.9% for pramipexole; all p < 0.05). Pramipexole significantly improved ratings of symptom severity, day and night, and also ratings of sleep satisfaction and QOL. Pramipexole was well tolerated: The most frequent adverse events with higher occurrence in the pramipexole group were nausea (19.0% vs 4.7%) and somnolence (10.1% vs 4.7%), Conclusion: As rated by patients and by clinicians, pramipexole was efficacious and safe in reducing the symptoms of restless legs syndrome.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common disorder that is estimated to affect 10% of Americans. However, it remains largely undiagnosed and untreated by clinicians. The primary symptoms of this condition are leg discomfort or an urge to move that is temporarily relieved by movement and is worse at rest and at bedtime. RLS impacts the quality of life of the sufferer by disrupting sleep and disturbing or curtailing work and social activities. Approximately 80% of RLS sufferers also have periodic limb movements during sleep, in which repetitive leg movements fragment sleep and may result in daytime drowsiness. RLS may be treated by dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants and opiates; dopamine agonists are currently considered first-line therapy for this condition. Pramipexole has been studied in the treatment of RLS since 1998. This article reviews the role of this medication in the management of this serious neurological disorder.

Ropinirole is an original nonergoline dopamine agonist indicated for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. However, recent developments in the study of restless legs syndrome have demonstrated another role for this drug. The symptoms of restless legs syndrome are responsive to dopaminergic agents such as ropinirole. The dosage of ropinirole needed to treat the symptoms of restless legs syndrome appears to be much smaller than what is necessary for Parkinson's disease therapy. The liver is primarily responsible for the metabolism of ropinirole, which has an elimination half-life of approximately 6 h. Ropinirole is generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse effects. Clinical studies have indicated that ropinirole can effectively reduce the motor symptoms of restless legs syndrome and improve overall sleep quality.

The objective of this study is to examine the causal relationships between the symptoms of restless legs syndrome (RLS) and specific clinical and subjective health-related, quality of life consequences. Structural equation modeling was applied to data from a questionnaire-based observational study. The RLS morbidities of decreased functional alertness and emotional distress in our sample of patients appear to be mostly secondary to the sleep disturbance associated with RLS. There was no clear indication of any other feature of RLS affecting these two aspects of RLS morbidity. A primary treatment goal should be the reduction of the sleep disturbance of RLS, both to decrease the RLS-related nocturnal distress and to improve daytime functioning.

Study Objectives: Polysomnographic study evaluating the efficacy of ropinirole for the treatment of patients with restless legs syndrome (RLS) suffering from periodic leg movements in sleep (PLMS)., Design: Double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study., Setting: 15 tertiary referral centers in the USA., Participants: 65 patients with RLS and PLMS., Interventions: Ropinirole (0.25-4.0 mg per day) or placebo for 12 weeks., Measurements and Results: Data from 59 patients were included in the primary endpoint analysis. PLMS per hour decreased more with ropinirole (48.5 to 11.8), compared with placebo (35.7 to 34.2; adjusted treatment difference: -27.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -39.1, -15.4; P < .0001). Periodic limb movements with arousal per hour decreased from 7.0 to 2.5 with ropinirole but increased from 4.2 to 6.0 with placebo (adjusted treatment difference: -4.3, 95% CI: -7.6, -1.1; P = .0096). Periodic limb movements while awake per hour decreased from 56.5 to 23.6 with ropinirole but increased from 46.6 to 56.1 with placebo (adjusted treatment difference: -39.5; 95% CI: -56.9, -22.1; P < .0001). Ropinirole treatment significantly improved patients' ability to initiate sleep (P < .05) and the amount of Stage 2 sleep compared with placebo (P < .001). There were also non-significant trends toward increases in total sleep time and sleep efficiency. Sleep adequacy (measured on the subjective Medical Outcomes Study sleep scale) was significantly improved with ropinirole treatment (adjusted treatment difference: 12.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 23.1; P = .0316). In contrast, the placebo group showed a greater increase in Stage 3/4 sleep (P < .01). No serious adverse events occurred in either group., Conclusions: Ropinirole is effective in the treatment of both the sleep and waking symptoms of RLS.

Background: There are relatively few studies on the prevalence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in the general population, even fewer that used diagnostic questions covering all 4 essential diagnostic criteria defining the RLS symptom complex, and none that have reported on the 2 RLS phenotypes for patients seen by family physicians., Methods: To determine the prevalence of the symptom complex, diagnostic for RLS in a primary care patient population, a prospective population-based single-center study was performed. Every adult patient presenting for care in a small rural primary care practice with mostly white patients was surveyed for a 1-year period using a validated RLS diagnostic questionnaire., Results: A total of 2099 patients completed the questionnaire. Analysis revealed that 24.0% of these patients were positive for all 4 of the essential symptoms used to make the diagnosis of RLS and 15.3% reported these symptoms at least weekly. In addition, the RLS symptom complex was reported significantly more often by women than men and, as a whole, patients reporting the RLS symptoms were significantly older than patients without symptoms. The prevalence of symptoms increased with age until about 60 years and then showed a steady decrease thereafter. Further, early-onset RLS was significantly more common in women than men., Conclusions: A high prevalence of RLS symptoms was observed in this primary care population. This finding supports the need for heightened awareness in both the medical community and general population regarding this disorder, which can often be effectively treated within the primary care practice.

Objective: The International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group has developed and validated a ten-item scale for assessing the severity of the restless legs syndrome. This International Restless Legs Severity Scale (IRLS) is reported to have a high degree of internal consistency and it has generally been used as a single scale. This study uses a factor analytic approach to evaluate the IRLS for possibly useful subscales., Methods: A large convenience sample (n=516) of self-identified restless leg syndrome patients completed the IRLS over the Internet. Data were analyzed using principal component analyses., Results: Two primary factors were identified, one with six items related to symptom severity and a second with three items related to impact of the symptoms on life. These accounted for 41.8 and 22.5% of the variance, respectively., Conclusions: The IRLS can be evaluated using separate subscale scores: one for symptoms and the other symptom impact. The relative merits of these subscale scores versus the score for the entire test need to be evaluated in different situations in further studies, in especially the ones involving assessing responsiveness to treatment effects.