Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27146056›Full record

ReviewDrugs2016

Gabapentin Enacarbil: A Review in Restless Legs Syndrome.

Esther S Kim, Emma D Deeks

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Update on Restless Legs Syndrome: from Mechanisms to Treatment.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Esther S KimSpringer, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay 0754, Auckland, New Zealand. demail@springer.com.
Emma D DeeksSpringer, Private Bag 65901, Mairangi Bay 0754, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gabapentin enacarbil is an extended-release prodrug of gabapentin that is approved in the USA (Horizant(®)) and Japan (Regnite(®)) for the treatment of moderate to severe primary restless legs syndrome (RLS) in adults [featured indication]. This article summarizes pharmacological, efficacy and tolerability data relevant to the use of oral gabapentin enacarbil in this indication. In double-blind, multicentre trials, treatment with gabapentin enacarbil 600 mg/day for 12 weeks significantly improved the symptoms of moderate to severe primary RLS in adults. Gabapentin enacarbil also significantly improved RLS pain scores and generally improved sleep and mood outcomes. These data are supported by retrospective pooled analyses of three of these trials (XP081, PIVOT RLS I and PIVOT RLS II), with gabapentin enacarbil generally improving symptoms irrespective of disease severity, associated sleep disturbance or prior dopamine agonist use. Responses to gabapentin enacarbil were sustained in longer-term trials, with lower relapse rates in gabapentin enacarbil than placebo recipients in a longer-term maintenance study. Overall, in short and longer-term trials, relatively few patients discontinued treatment, adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity, and somnolence/sedation and dizziness were the most commonly reported adverse events. Notably, there were no reports of augmentation or QT-interval prolongation. Gabapentin enacarbil is an important agent for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe primary RLS.

Indexed as

CarbamatesDose-Response Relationship, DrugDouble-Blind Methodgamma-Aminobutyric AcidHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPain ManagementProdrugsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRestless Legs SyndromeSleep1-(((alpha-isobutanoyloxyethoxy)carbonyl)aminomethyl)-1-cyclohexaneacetic acidCarbamatesgamma-Aminobutyric AcidProdrugs

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.