Prevalence of restless legs syndrome in a tertiary cohort of ambulant patients with chronic liver disease

Abstract

A cross-sectional survey of 188 ambulant patients with chronic liver disease was performed to determine the prevalence of restless legs syndrome (RLS) using a validated patient completed questionnaire. Patient responses were verified by standardised telephone interview. RLS was identified in 64 (34%) patients. Significantly, more patients with cirrhosis had RLS than patients without RLS (43.9 vs 23.3%, P = 0.003, respectively). Cirrhotic patients with a history of hepatic encephalopathy were also more likely to have RLS than patients without hepatic encephalopathy (odds ratio = 4.33, 95% confidence interval = 1.40-13.37, P = 0.011). Patients with chronic liver disease may be at risk for RLS; early detection and treatment may improve patient outcomes.

Results of a 10‐year follow‐up study of botulinum toxin A therapy for primary axillary hyperhidrosis in Australia

“…A low rate of compensatory sweating in our cohort was consistent with findings in larger international studies. 11,20 Our retrospective study design relied on patients recall of treatment episodes. Frequent patient relocation both within Australia and overseas, and ease of access to onabotuli-numtoxinA meant our institution's medical records alone were not comprehensive.…”

Prevalence of Current Restless Legs Syndrome Symptoms Among Patients Treated with Buprenorphine/Naloxone for Opioid Use Disorder

“…First, this sample was relatively small and larger studies on this topic should be conducted. Additionally, determinations of RLS symptom status were made based on survey responses; although the survey used to classify RLS status was a validated and well-known instrument (the Cambridge-Hopkins RLS Questionnaire), which is a more elaborated version of the 4-question screening questionnaire widely used in RLS prevalence studies, [31][32][33][34][35] a clinical interview to confirm diagnosis would have been optimal and should be utilized in future studies in this population. 36 Additionally, it is unclear how many patients at the clinic refused participation in the study and there is thus some potential for selection bias.…”