Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Study objectivesLong-term dopamine agonist (DA) use in restless legs syndrome (RLS) is associated with augmentation, a dose-related symptom worsening leading to further dose escalation to manage RLS. This study investigated rates and factors of high-dose DA prescribing in US RLS patients.MethodsThis retrospective analysis examined data from a US longitudinal prescriptions database (October 2017-September 2018). Patients diagnosed with RLS (ICD-10 G255.81) without Parkinson's disease who were prescribed ropinirole, pramipexole, and/or rotigotine were included. Daily DA dosage was categorized: LOW/MID (US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved/guideline or slightly above FDA-approved [pramipexole]); HIGH (101%-149%); VERY HIGH (>150%). Patient counts were converted to US national estimates. Logistic regression of patient counts evaluated factors associated with HIGH/VERY HIGH DA dosing.ResultsOf 670,404 RLS patients (131,289,331 therapy days), 58.8% were prescribed DA therapy. Overall, 19.1% of RLS patients were prescribed DAs above maximum FDA-approved/guideline daily doses-over half of these were >150% maximum recommended doses; 67.6% of HIGH/VERY HIGH-dose prescriptions were pramipexole (OR [95% CI] pramipexole vs ropinirole, 5.8 [5.7 to 6.0]). The highest 1% of DA prescriptions were ≥10× the FDA-recommended maximum daily dose. Rates of HIGH/VERY HIGH DA dosing increased with patient age. Twice as many neurologists (31.1%) prescribed HIGH/VERY HIGH doses vs other specialties (OR [95% CI], 2.1 [1.2 to 2.0]).ConclusionsApproximately 20% of DA-treated RLS patients were prescribed doses above the approved and guideline daily maximum. Pramipexole, Neurology as specialty, and patient age were independently associated with HIGH/VERY HIGH DA dosing. Increased education is warranted regarding risks of high-dose DA exposure in RLS.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.