Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This is an initial placebo-controlled study followed by open treatment evaluating the effectiveness and tolerability of ropinirole long-term in patients with moderate to severe Restless Legs Syndrome.
A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ropinirole for 26 weeks and to further evaluate the incidence of augmentation and rebound for a further 40 weeks open-label extension treatment period in subjects suffering from moderate to severe Restless Legs Syndrome.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double-blind for 12 to 26 Weeks | Placebo Comparator | Double-blind (Ropinirole:Placebo) for 12 to 26 weeks |
|
| Open-label ropinirole for 40-Weeks | Other | Open label ropinirole for 40 weeks |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Drug | Matching Placebo |
| |
| Ropinirole |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Change From Baseline in the International Restless Legs Syndrome (IRLS) Rating Scale Total Score at Week 12 and Week 26 | A 10-item, participant-reported scale covering different symptoms of the condition. Each item is scored from 0 to 4; 0 represents the absence of a problem and 4 reflects a very severe problem. The best and worst possible scores are 0 and 40, respectively; higher scores represent a greater severity of symptoms. A negative change from baseline indicates improvement, and a negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Ropinirole IR over placebo. The primary assessment was made by calculating the difference in the average score obtained at Baseline with scores at Week 12 and then Week 26. | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| Number of Participants With Clinically Meaningful Augmentation and Early Morning Rebound (EMR) Cases | Clinically meaningful augmentation and early morning rebound (EMR) were assessed and confirmed by an independent Adjudication Board. EMR describes the development of RLS symptoms during the early morning, following therapeutic intervention. EMR is differentiated from augmentation, in which the earlier onset of symptoms occurs in the evening. | During 15-month study duration at scheduled (Weeks 16, 20, 26, or early withdrawal for DB phase; Weeks 39, 47, 55, 63, 67, or early withdrawal for the OL phase) and unscheduled (26-week DB phase and 40-week OL phase) visits |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Change From Baseline in the International RLS (IRLS) Rating Scale Total Score at Weeks 1, 4, 8, 16, and 20 | A 10-item, participant-reported scale covering different RLS symptoms. Each item is scored from 0 to 4; 0 represents the absence of a problem and 4 reflects a very severe problem. The best and worst possible scores are 0 and 40, respectively; higher scores represent a greater severity of symptoms. The primary assessment from this study was made by calculating the difference in the average score obtained at Baseline with scores at Weeks 1, 4, 8, 16, and 20. Scores were adjusted for baseline IRLS total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
A female is eligible to enter and participate in the study if she is of:
Non-childbearing potential (i.e., physiologically incapable of becoming pregnant, including any female who is post-menopausal); or,
Childbearing potential, has a negative result on all required pregnancy tests prior to randomisation, and agrees to an acceptable contraceptive method.
Exclusion criteria:
Atypical and typical antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, opioids (including propoxyphene and oxycodone), anxiolytics, all sedatives/hypnotics (including benzodiazepines), lithium, oral neuroleptics, stimulants (including methylphenidate), dopamine agonists (including ropinirole), dopamine antagonists (e.g., typical neuroleptics, metoclopramide), levodopa/carbidopa, clonidine, and sedating antihistamines (e.g., chlorpheniramine, diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine) or any preparations containing these antihistamines.
The minimum discontinuation period is generally 5 half lives or 7 consecutive evenings/nights medication free, prior to baseline, whichever is the longer period. Exceptions to this general rule are: fluoxetine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors: 4 weeks.
For subjects entering the 40-week, open-label treatment phase, the GSK Medical Monitor can be contacted to discuss individual cases where adherence to the above may not have occurred.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| GSK Clinical Trials | GlaxoSmithKline | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSK Investigational Site | Camperdown | New South Wales | 2050 | Australia | ||
| GSK Investigational Site |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22328464 | Background | Garcia-Borreguero D, Hogl B, Ferini-Strambi L, Winkelman J, Hill-Zabala C, Asgharian A, Allen R. Systematic evaluation of augmentation during treatment with ropinirole in restless legs syndrome (Willis-Ekbom disease): results from a prospective, multicenter study over 66 weeks. Mov Disord. 2012 Feb;27(2):277-83. doi: 10.1002/mds.24889. Epub 2012 Jan 4. | |
| 23938061 |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| Researchers can use this site to request access to anonymised patient level data and/or supporting documents from clinical studies to conduct further research. | View source |
| ID | Type | URL | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROR104836 | Informed Consent Form | View IPD |
Patient-level data for this study will be made available through www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com following the timelines and process described on this site.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Participants (par.) could enter the Open-Label (OL) phase at the end of the Double-Blind (DB) phase. If a par. did not complete the DB phase due to lack of efficacy, he/she could also be considered for entry into the OL phase if the investigator considered it appropriate and the par. met the protocol-defined criteria in describing lack of efficacy.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Double-blind Placebo | Matching placebo tablets |
| FG001 | Double-blind Ropinirole IR | Ropinirole IR (immediate release) tablets containing ropinirole hydrochloride equivalent to 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.0 mg of the active drug substance, taken once a day |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26-Week Double-Blind Treatment Phase |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Drug |
Ropinirole IR 0.25mg/day to 4mg/day for RLS |
|
| Baseline and Weeks 1, 4, 8, 16, and 20 |
| Change From Baseline in the Domains of the 12-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS-12) Sleep Scale at Weeks 12 and 26 | The MOS-12 Sleep Scale is a comprehensive battery, which measures specific aspects of sleep in participants that may have varying co-morbidities, and, as a result, is appropriate for a medically diverse participant population. Domain values are presented on a 0-100 scale, where a higher score means a greater degree of the attribute implied by the scale name. Scores were adjusted for baseline MOS sleep scale domain value, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| Change From Baseline in Sleep Quantity, a Domain of the 12-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS-12) Sleep Scale, at Weeks 12 and 26 | The MOS-12 Sleep Scale is a comprehensive battery, which measures specific aspects of sleep in participants that may have varying co-morbidities, and, as a result, is appropriate for a medically diverse participant population.Scores were adjusted for baseline MOS sleep scale domain value, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| Change From Baseline in the Johns Hopkins RLS Quality of Life (RLS QoL) Questionnaire Overall Life Impact Score at Weeks 12 and 26 | The Johns Hopkins RLS QoL Questionnaire is a disease-specific instrument that assesses the impact of RLS on the daily life, emotional well-being, social life, and work life of participants. The overall life impact score for the John Hopkins RLS QoL scale ranges from a lowest possible score of 0 to a highest possible score of 100. Higher scores represent better quality of life. Scores were adjusted for baseline RLS Quality of Life score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| Change From Baseline in the Domains of the MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at Weeks 12 and 26 | The MOS SF-36 is a generic QoL instrument measuring functional status and well-being. Positive change from baseline for all domains indicates improvement. For all MOS SF-36 domains, the minimum and maximum scores are 0 and 100, respectively, for the transformed scale. Scores were adjusted for baseline domain score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| Percentage of Participants With a Score of Much/Very Much Improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement (CGI-I) Scale at Weeks 1, 12 and 26 | The CGI-I is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-I allows the investigator to rate the participant's global improvement or worsening compared with the condition at Baseline (Day 0). The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = very much improved; 7 = very much worse). Typically, a participant with a score of 1 or 2 (much improved) is considered a responder. | Weeks 1, 12 and 26 |
| Number of Participants Withdrawing Due to Lack of Efficacy During the First 26 Weeks of the Study | Lack of efficacy is defined as up to a 10% improvement in the IRLS Rating Scale total score from the participant's Baseline value and at least 12 weeks of treatment during the double-blind phase. | Baseline to Week 26 |
| Number of Participants Rated as Normal or Borderline Ill on the CGI Severity of Illness (CGI-S) Scale at Week 26 | The CGI-S scale is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-S allows the investigator to rate the severity of the participant's illness considering their total clinical experience with the subject population being studied and on all information available at the time of rating. The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = normal, not at all ill; 2 = borderline ill; 3 = mildly ill; 4 = moderately ill; 5 = markedly ill; 6 = severly ill; 7 = among the most extremely ill participants). | Week 26 |
| Median Time to First CGI-I Response of Much/Very Much Improved During the Double-blind Phase | The median time to first CGI-I response of much/very much improved was calculated. The CGI-I is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-I allows the investigator to rate the participant's global improvement or worsening compared with the condition at Baseline (Day 0). The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = very much improved; 7 = very much worse). Typically, a participant with a score of 1 or 2 (much improved) is considered a responder. | Baseline to Week 26 |
| Number of Participants With a Score of Much/Very Much Improved on the CGI-I Scale at Week 67 | The CGI-I is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-I allows the investigator to rate the participant's global improvement or worsening compared with the condition at Baseline (Day 0). The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = very much improved; 7 = very much worse). Typically, a participant with a score of 1 or 2 (much improved) is considered a responder. | Week 67 |
| Mean Change From Baseline in the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score at Week 67 | A 10-item, participant-reported scale covering different symptoms of the condition. Each item is scored from 0 to 4, with 0 representing the absence of a problem and 4 reflecting a very severe problem. The best and worst possible scores are 0 and 40, respectively. The primary assessment was made by calculating the difference in the average score obtained at Baseline with score at Week 67. | Baseline and Week 67 |
| Kippa-Ring |
| Queensland |
| 4021 |
| Australia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Woodville | South Australia | 5011 | Australia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Clayton | Victoria | 3168 | Australia |
| GSK Investigational Site | East Melbourne | Victoria | 3002 | Australia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Olomouc | 775 20 | Czechia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Ostrava | 702 00 | Czechia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Pardubice | 535 03 | Czechia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Prague | 120 00 | Czechia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Aalborg | 9000 | Denmark |
| GSK Investigational Site | Odense C | 5000 | Denmark |
| GSK Investigational Site | Vejle | 7100 | Denmark |
| GSK Investigational Site | Bamberg | Bavaria | 96047 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Munich | Bavaria | 80331 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Regensburg | Bavaria | 93053 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Marburg | Hesse | 35039 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Westerstede | Lower Saxony | 26655 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Schwerin | Mecklenburg-Vorpommern | 19053 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Berlin | State of Berlin | 10787 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Berlin | State of Berlin | 10969 | Germany |
| GSK Investigational Site | Bologna | Emilia-Romagna | 40123 | Italy |
| GSK Investigational Site | Rome | Lazio | 00163 | Italy |
| GSK Investigational Site | Pavia | Lombardy | 27100 | Italy |
| GSK Investigational Site | Hamar | 2317 | Norway |
| GSK Investigational Site | Coimbra | 3000-075 | Portugal |
| GSK Investigational Site | Lisbon | 1649-035 | Portugal |
| GSK Investigational Site | Bratislava | 831 03 | Slovakia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Bratislava | 833 05 | Slovakia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Dubnica nad Váhom | 018 41 | Slovakia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Levoča | 054 01 | Slovakia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Žilina | 010 01 | Slovakia |
| GSK Investigational Site | Barcelona | 08017 | Spain |
| GSK Investigational Site | Madrid | 28036 | Spain |
| GSK Investigational Site | San Sebastián | 20014 | Spain |
| GSK Investigational Site | Avesta | SE-774 82 | Sweden |
| GSK Investigational Site | Gothenburg | SE-412 55 | Sweden |
| GSK Investigational Site | Örebro | 701 85 | Sweden |
| GSK Investigational Site | Bern | 3010 | Switzerland |
| GSK Investigational Site | Zurich | 8091 | Switzerland |
| Giorgi L, Asgharian A, Hunter B. Ropinirole in patients with restless legs syndrome and baseline IRLS total scores >/= 24: efficacy and tolerability in a 26-week, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study followed by a 40-week open-label extension. Clin Ther. 2013 Sep;35(9):1321-36. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2013.06.016. Epub 2013 Aug 9. |
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| ROR104836 | Statistical Analysis Plan | View IPD | For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| ROR104836 | Dataset Specification | View IPD | For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| ROR104836 | Study Protocol | View IPD | For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| ROR104836 | Annotated Case Report Form | View IPD | For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| ROR104836 | Individual Participant Data Set | View IPD | For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| ROR104836 | Clinical Study Report | View IPD | For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register |
| FG002 | Open-label Ropinirole IR | Ropinirole IR (immediate release) tablets containing ropinirole hydrochloride equivalent to 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.0 mg of the active drug substance, taken once a day |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| 40-Week Open-Label Treatment Phase |
|
|
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Double-Blind Placebo | Matching placebo tablets |
| BG001 | Double-Blind Ropinirole IR | Ropinirole IR (immediate release) tablets containing ropinirole hydrochloride equivalent to 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.0 mg of the active drug substance, taken once a day |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | The Safety Population, comprised of all participants who received at least one dose of study medication, was used for all demographic characteristics. | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
| ||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | The Safety Population, comprised of all participants who received at least one dose of study medication, was used for all demographic characteristics. | Count of Participants | Participants |
| |||||||||||||||
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | The Safety Population, comprised of all participants who received at least one dose of study medication, was used for all demographic characteristics. | Number | participants |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Mean Change From Baseline in the International Restless Legs Syndrome (IRLS) Rating Scale Total Score at Week 12 and Week 26 | A 10-item, participant-reported scale covering different symptoms of the condition. Each item is scored from 0 to 4; 0 represents the absence of a problem and 4 reflects a very severe problem. The best and worst possible scores are 0 and 40, respectively; higher scores represent a greater severity of symptoms. A negative change from baseline indicates improvement, and a negative treatment difference indicates a benefit of Ropinirole IR over placebo. The primary assessment was made by calculating the difference in the average score obtained at Baseline with scores at Week 12 and then Week 26. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | points on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in the International RLS (IRLS) Rating Scale Total Score at Weeks 1, 4, 8, 16, and 20 | A 10-item, participant-reported scale covering different RLS symptoms. Each item is scored from 0 to 4; 0 represents the absence of a problem and 4 reflects a very severe problem. The best and worst possible scores are 0 and 40, respectively; higher scores represent a greater severity of symptoms. The primary assessment from this study was made by calculating the difference in the average score obtained at Baseline with scores at Weeks 1, 4, 8, 16, and 20. Scores were adjusted for baseline IRLS total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | points on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 1, 4, 8, 16, and 20 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in the Domains of the 12-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS-12) Sleep Scale at Weeks 12 and 26 | The MOS-12 Sleep Scale is a comprehensive battery, which measures specific aspects of sleep in participants that may have varying co-morbidities, and, as a result, is appropriate for a medically diverse participant population. Domain values are presented on a 0-100 scale, where a higher score means a greater degree of the attribute implied by the scale name. Scores were adjusted for baseline MOS sleep scale domain value, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | points on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in Sleep Quantity, a Domain of the 12-item Medical Outcomes Study (MOS-12) Sleep Scale, at Weeks 12 and 26 | The MOS-12 Sleep Scale is a comprehensive battery, which measures specific aspects of sleep in participants that may have varying co-morbidities, and, as a result, is appropriate for a medically diverse participant population.Scores were adjusted for baseline MOS sleep scale domain value, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | hours | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in the Johns Hopkins RLS Quality of Life (RLS QoL) Questionnaire Overall Life Impact Score at Weeks 12 and 26 | The Johns Hopkins RLS QoL Questionnaire is a disease-specific instrument that assesses the impact of RLS on the daily life, emotional well-being, social life, and work life of participants. The overall life impact score for the John Hopkins RLS QoL scale ranges from a lowest possible score of 0 to a highest possible score of 100. Higher scores represent better quality of life. Scores were adjusted for baseline RLS Quality of Life score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | points on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in the Domains of the MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) at Weeks 12 and 26 | The MOS SF-36 is a generic QoL instrument measuring functional status and well-being. Positive change from baseline for all domains indicates improvement. For all MOS SF-36 domains, the minimum and maximum scores are 0 and 100, respectively, for the transformed scale. Scores were adjusted for baseline domain score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment interaction, and center group. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | points on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants With a Score of Much/Very Much Improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement (CGI-I) Scale at Weeks 1, 12 and 26 | The CGI-I is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-I allows the investigator to rate the participant's global improvement or worsening compared with the condition at Baseline (Day 0). The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = very much improved; 7 = very much worse). Typically, a participant with a score of 1 or 2 (much improved) is considered a responder. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Weeks 1, 12 and 26 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Number of Participants Withdrawing Due to Lack of Efficacy During the First 26 Weeks of the Study | Lack of efficacy is defined as up to a 10% improvement in the IRLS Rating Scale total score from the participant's Baseline value and at least 12 weeks of treatment during the double-blind phase. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available | Posted | Number | participants | Baseline to Week 26 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Number of Participants Rated as Normal or Borderline Ill on the CGI Severity of Illness (CGI-S) Scale at Week 26 | The CGI-S scale is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-S allows the investigator to rate the severity of the participant's illness considering their total clinical experience with the subject population being studied and on all information available at the time of rating. The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = normal, not at all ill; 2 = borderline ill; 3 = mildly ill; 4 = moderately ill; 5 = markedly ill; 6 = severly ill; 7 = among the most extremely ill participants). | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available. Data are presented for the participants still in the study and assessed at Week 26, which is less than those randomised at baseline. | Posted | Number | participants | Week 26 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Median Time to First CGI-I Response of Much/Very Much Improved During the Double-blind Phase | The median time to first CGI-I response of much/very much improved was calculated. The CGI-I is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-I allows the investigator to rate the participant's global improvement or worsening compared with the condition at Baseline (Day 0). The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = very much improved; 7 = very much worse). Typically, a participant with a score of 1 or 2 (much improved) is considered a responder. | Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Population: all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study medication, and for whom at least one valid post-baseline efficacy assessment was available | Posted | Median | 95% Confidence Interval | days | Baseline to Week 26 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Number of Participants With a Score of Much/Very Much Improved on the CGI-I Scale at Week 67 | The CGI-I is a psychometric instrument that is used to measure general clinical status in a variety of disease states. The CGI-I allows the investigator to rate the participant's global improvement or worsening compared with the condition at Baseline (Day 0). The scale is rated from 1-7 (1 = very much improved; 7 = very much worse). Typically, a participant with a score of 1 or 2 (much improved) is considered a responder. | Open-Label (OL) ITT Population: all participants who were enrolled into the OL Phase of the study, received at least one dose of OL study medication, and had a baseline IRLS total score and on-treatment IRLS assessment. Data are presented for participants still in the study and assessed at Week 26, which is less than those randomized at baseline. | Posted | Number | participants | Week 67 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Number of Participants With Clinically Meaningful Augmentation and Early Morning Rebound (EMR) Cases | Clinically meaningful augmentation and early morning rebound (EMR) were assessed and confirmed by an independent Adjudication Board. EMR describes the development of RLS symptoms during the early morning, following therapeutic intervention. EMR is differentiated from augmentation, in which the earlier onset of symptoms occurs in the evening. | Safety Population: all participants who received at least one dose of study medication | Posted | Number | participants | During 15-month study duration at scheduled (Weeks 16, 20, 26, or early withdrawal for DB phase; Weeks 39, 47, 55, 63, 67, or early withdrawal for the OL phase) and unscheduled (26-week DB phase and 40-week OL phase) visits |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Mean Change From Baseline in the IRLS Rating Scale Total Score at Week 67 | A 10-item, participant-reported scale covering different symptoms of the condition. Each item is scored from 0 to 4, with 0 representing the absence of a problem and 4 reflecting a very severe problem. The best and worst possible scores are 0 and 40, respectively. The primary assessment was made by calculating the difference in the average score obtained at Baseline with score at Week 67. | Open-Label ITT Population: all participants who were enrolled into the Open-Label Phase of the study, received at least one dose of Open-Label study medication, and had a baseline IRLS total score and on-treatment IRLS assessment. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | points on a scale | Baseline and Week 67 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post-Hoc | Post-hoc Analysis of Mean Change From Baseline in the International Restless Legs Syndrome (IRLS) Rating Scale Total Score at Week 12 and Week 26, Exploring the Impact of Center Group on Treatment Effect | A post-hoc analysis of the primary outcome measure, exploring the variation in treatment effects across center groups by excluding those with the most extreme treatment effects, was conducted. Centers were grouped into five center groups. | ITT Population excluding the two center groups with the most extreme treatment effects. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | Standard Error | Points on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 12 and 26 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Post-Hoc | Post-hoc Analysis of Percentage of Participants With a Score of Much/Very Much Improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement (CGI-I) Scale at Weeks 12 and 26, Exploring the Impact of Center Group on Treatment Effect | A post-hoc analysis of CGI-I, exploring the variation in treatment effects across center groups by excluding the same two center groups as in the IRLS post-hoc analysis, was conducted. Centers were grouped into five center groups. | ITT Population excluding the same two center groups as in the IRLS post-hoc analysis. Analysis is based on the observed cases for each visit. | Posted | Number | Number of responders | Weeks 12 and 26 |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Double-blind Placebo | Matching placebo tablets | 6 | 207 | 71 | 207 | ||
| EG001 | Double-blind Ropinirole IR | Ropinirole IR (immediate release) tablets containing ropinirole hydrochloride equivalent to 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.0 mg of the active drug substance, taken once a day | 6 | 197 | 123 | 197 | ||
| EG002 | Open-Label Ropinirole IR | Ropinirole IR (immediate release) tablets containing ropinirole hydrochloride equivalent to 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.0 mg of the active drug substance, taken once a day | 11 | 269 | 122 | 269 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdominal pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abdominal pain upper | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Peptic ulcer | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Appendicitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Post procedural infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pyelonephritis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| B-cell lymphoma | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Uterine cancer | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fallopian tube cyst | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ovarian cyst | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ovarian cyst torsion | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gallbladder disorder | Hepatobiliary disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Joint dislocation | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myalgia | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cerebral infarction | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypertension | Vascular disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bursa calcification | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Osteoarthritis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Osteonecrosis | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Rotator cuff syndrome | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Femoral neck fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Head injury | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Brain stem ischaemia | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Syncope | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vertigo | Ear and labyrinth disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Chest pain | General disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cholelithiasis | Hepatobiliary disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Postmenopausal haemorrhage | Reproductive system and breast disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Headache | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fatigue | General disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nasopharyngitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dizziness | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Back pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Insomnia | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diarrhea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Somnolence | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA | Systematic Assessment |
|
GSK agreements may vary with individual investigators, but will not prohibit any investigator from publishing. GSK supports the publication of results from all centers of a multi-center trial but requests that reports based on single-site data not precede the primary publication of the entire clinical trial.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSK Response Center | GlaxoSmithKline | 866-435-7343 |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012148 | Restless Legs Syndrome |
| D008224 | Lymphoma, Follicular |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
| D020919 | Sleep Disorders, Intrinsic |
| D020920 | Dyssomnias |
| D012893 | Sleep Wake Disorders |
| D020447 | Parasomnias |
| D001523 | Mental Disorders |
| D008228 | Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin |
| D008223 | Lymphoma |
| D009370 | Neoplasms by Histologic Type |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D008232 | Lymphoproliferative Disorders |
| D008206 | Lymphatic Diseases |
| D006425 | Hemic and Lymphatic Diseases |
| D007160 | Immunoproliferative Disorders |
| D007154 | Immune System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| C046649 | ropinirole |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Protocol Violation |
|
| Lack of Efficacy |
|
| Captured as Other |
|
| Male |
|
| Asian |
|
| Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander |
|
| Repeated Measures Mixed Model |
Adjusted for baseline IRLS Rating Scale total score, treatment group, visit, visit by treatment group interaction, and center group. |
| 0.023 |
P-value is for Week 26. |
| 95 |
| Superiority or Other |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Participants |
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Participants |
|
|
|
Ropinirole IR (immediate release) tablets containing ropinirole hydrochloride equivalent to 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg, or 2.0 mg of the active drug substance, taken once a day |
|
|
|
| Units |
|---|
| Counts |
|---|
| Participants |
|
|
| Participants |
|
|