64 Restless Legs Syndrome Statistics

by

These restless legs syndrome figures cover the measurement periods and populations identified in the available source material. Estimates, surveys and forecasts retain their reported scope.

Key Restless Legs Syndrome Statistics

The main findings are:

  • Modeled global RLS prevalence in 2019 was 7.12% among adults aged 20–79 (95% CI 5.15–9.76) (global, age 20–79).
  • The earlier review’s primary-care populations averaged 19.5% prevalence (SD 7.9) (studies published 1995–2010; North American and Western European primary-care populations).
  • A meta-analysis estimated third-trimester RLS prevalence at 22.9% (95% CI 14.7–33.8%) (literature through 2019; third trimester, studies of women aged 25–39).
  • US RLS respondents had a Mental Component Summary score of 44.60 versus 48.92 among matched non-RLS respondents (2012 National Health and Wellness Survey; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults).
  • Across three alpha-2-delta-ligand trials, 74% were rated improved or very much improved versus 44% with placebo (RR 1.60; NNT 3.2) (systematic review trials; adults with primary RLS).
  • Dopamine-agonist trials reported withdrawals for any reason in 20% versus 24% with placebo (RR 0.79; 16 trials) (systematic review short-term trials; adults with primary RLS).
  • The modeled 2019 global estimate corresponded to 356.07 million affected adults (95% CI 257.61–488.09 million) (global, age 20–79).
  • Random-sample or geographically defined cohorts in the earlier review averaged 12.3% prevalence (SD 7.2) (studies published 1995–2010; North America and Western Europe).
  • The pregnancy review included 10 papers (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy studies).
  • US RLS respondents had a Physical Component Summary score of 40.57 versus 46.78 among matched non-RLS respondents (2012 National Health and Wellness Survey; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults).
  • The pooled alpha-2-delta-ligand improvement in IRLS score versus placebo was −4.26 points (95% CI −5.75 to −2.77) (systematic review trials; adults with primary RLS).
  • Withdrawals due to adverse effects occurred in 10% on dopamine agonists versus 6% on placebo (RR 1.37; 16 trials) (systematic review short-term trials; adults with primary RLS).
  • The modeled high-SDI-region prevalence was 7.29% (95% CI 5.04–10.41) (2019; high socio-demographic-index regions, adults 20–79).
  • The earlier review combined 233,180 participants across 34 eligible population-based studies (1995–2010 literature; North America and Western Europe).
  • The pregnancy meta-analysis covered 2,431 participants (literature through 2019; pregnant women aged 25–39).

Contents

Restless legs syndrome statistics: global prevalence and estimated cases

Systematic-review model using studies applying minimal IRLSSG criteria; not a direct census.

Derived from modeled prevalence and population data.

Model-based regional estimate.

Model-based case allocation, not observed case registration.

Regional model using heterogeneous population studies.

Regional model; uncertainty intervals overlap with other regions.

Modeled case count, not a registry total.

Study-count context, not a prevalence estimate.

Cross-study average spans differing diagnostic and frequency criteria.

Restless legs syndrome statistics by region, age, sex and associated conditions

Primary-care samples are not equivalent to random general-population samples.

Cross-study average with differing diagnostic procedures.

Aggregate review sample; not a single representative survey.

Review component count; not an estimate of prevalence itself.

Review component count; populations and criteria varied.

Range describes study sizes, not disease prevalence.

Telephone survey used one RLS question and a frequency threshold for the second estimate.

Single-question telephone assessment.

Age-group estimates from one survey and one-question assessment.

Pooled association is not a causal effect and depends on model specification.

Pooled observational association; not proof that smoking causes RLS.

Pooled observational association; directionality is not established.

Pooled observational association; not a diabetes-attributable fraction.

Restless legs syndrome statistics during pregnancy

  • A meta-analysis estimated third-trimester RLS prevalence at 22.9% (95% CI 14.7–33.8%) (literature through 2019; third trimester, studies of women aged 25–39). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The pregnancy review included 10 papers (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy studies). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The pregnancy meta-analysis covered 2,431 participants (literature through 2019; pregnant women aged 25–39). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The 95% confidence interval around third-trimester prevalence extended from 14.7% to 33.8% (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The pregnancy review reported that prevalence diminished as study sample size increased in meta-regression (P<0.05) (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy studies). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The pregnancy review reported that prevalence increased with study year in meta-regression (P<0.05) (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy studies). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The age range of participants in the included third-trimester papers was 25–39 years (included studies; pregnant participants). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The pooled third-trimester estimate’s lower confidence bound was 14.7%, below the point estimate by 8.2 percentage points (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)
  • The pooled third-trimester estimate’s upper confidence bound was 33.8%, above the point estimate by 10.9 percentage points (literature through 2019; third-trimester pregnancy). (The prevalence of Restless Legs…)

Random-effects meta-analysis with heterogeneous studies.

Study count is context, not a clinical outcome.

Sample-size context; pooled estimate is the relevant statistic.

Interval reflects between-study uncertainty and heterogeneity.

Meta-regression finding can reflect study-design differences and should not be read causally.

Time trend may reflect changing ascertainment or populations, not biological change.

Age range describes included samples, not a prevalence estimate.

Simple difference from the reported point estimate; not a new clinical measurement.

Restless legs syndrome statistics on quality of life, work and healthcare burden

  • US RLS respondents had a Mental Component Summary score of 44.60 versus 48.92 among matched non-RLS respondents (2012 National Health and Wellness Survey; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • US RLS respondents had a Physical Component Summary score of 40.57 versus 46.78 among matched non-RLS respondents (2012 National Health and Wellness Survey; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Health Utilities averaged 0.63 for US RLS respondents versus 0.71 for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 National Health and Wellness Survey; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Absenteeism in the prior seven days was 8.1% for RLS respondents versus 9.3% for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 7 days; US working adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Presenteeism was 26.5% for RLS respondents versus 15.8% for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 7 days; US working adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Overall work productivity loss was 30.1% for RLS respondents versus 18.1% for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 7 days; US working adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • General activity impairment was 46.1% for RLS respondents versus 29.7% for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 7 days; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Healthcare-provider visits in the prior six months averaged 7.46 for RLS respondents versus 4.42 for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 6 months; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Emergency-room visits in the prior six months averaged 0.45 for RLS respondents versus 0.24 for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 6 months; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • Hospitalizations in the prior six months averaged 0.24 for RLS respondents versus 0.15 for matched non-RLS respondents (2012 survey; prior 6 months; US adults with RLS vs matched non-RLS adults). (The Humanistic and Economic Burden…)
  • German ambulatory RLS patients had average total costs of €2,090 over a three-month observation period (2006 euro values; 3-month observation; Germany, ambulatory RLS patients). (Health economic burden of patients…)
  • German patients’ average direct medical and non-medical costs from the health-insurance perspective were €780 over three months (2006 euro values; 3 months; Germany, ambulatory RLS patients). (Health economic burden of patients…)
  • Drug costs averaged €300 per German RLS patient over three months (2006 euro values; 3 months; Germany, ambulatory RLS patients). (Health economic burden of patients…)
  • Hospitalization costs averaged €354 per German RLS patient over three months (2006 euro values; 3 months; Germany, ambulatory RLS patients). (Health economic burden of patients…)
  • Average indirect costs for German RLS patients were €1,308 over three months (2006 euro values; 3 months; Germany, ambulatory RLS patients). (Health economic burden of patients…)

Cross-sectional self-report with propensity matching; instrument score is not prevalence.

Cross-sectional self-report with matched comparison.

Self-reported cross-sectional utility measure.

Self-reported short recall period; the RLS/non-RLS difference was reported as statistically significant despite the direction.

Self-reported productivity measure.

Cross-sectional self-report; includes absenteeism and presenteeism.

Self-reported impairment measure.

Self-reported healthcare utilization.

Self-reported utilization; not an administrative claims rate.

Self-reported utilization; matched observational comparison.

Clinic-based study; costs are 2006 values and should not be inflation-adjusted here.

Perspective excludes the full societal cost total.

Component of reported health-insurance-provider direct costs.

Component of reported direct costs.

Productivity-loss estimate using the human-capital approach.

Restless legs syndrome treatment statistics: symptom response and relapse

  • Across three alpha-2-delta-ligand trials, 74% were rated improved or very much improved versus 44% with placebo (RR 1.60; NNT 3.2) (systematic review trials; adults with primary RLS). (Pharmacologic Therapy for Primary Restless…)
  • The pooled alpha-2-delta-ligand improvement in IRLS score versus placebo was −4.26 points (95% CI −5.75 to −2.77) (systematic review trials; adults with primary RLS). (Pharmacologic Therapy for Primary Restless…)
  • In a gabapentin-enacarbil crossover trial, the mean IRLS difference versus placebo was −6.6 points (95% CI −8.6 to −4.6) (adults with primary RLS). (Pharmacologic Therapy for Primary Restless…)
  • Relapse during maintenance occurred in 9% continuing gabapentin enacarbil versus 23% assigned placebo (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20–0.85) (maintenance trial; adults with primary RLS). (Pharmacologic Therapy for Primary Restless…)
  • Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose reduced IRLS scores by 8.9 points versus 4.0 points with placebo over 28 days (28-day randomized trial; adults with moderate-to-severe RLS without iron deficiency). (Pharmacologic Therapy for Primary Restless…)
  • The ferric-carboxymaltose versus placebo mean difference in IRLS change was −4.90 points (95% CI −9.27 to −0.53) (28-day randomized trial; adults with moderate-to-severe RLS without iron deficiency). (Pharmacologic Therapy for Primary Restless…)
  • In the pregabalin trial, 63% receiving pregabalin improved on IRLS versus 38.2% receiving placebo (12-week randomized phase; patients with idiopathic RLS). (Treatment of restless legs syndrome…)
  • The mean effective pregabalin dose at the end of treatment was 322.50 mg/day (SD 98.77) (12-week randomized phase; patients with idiopathic RLS). (Treatment of restless legs syndrome…)
  • Therapeutic effects in the pregabalin trial were already observed at a mean dose of 139 mg/day (12-week randomized phase; patients with idiopathic RLS). (Treatment of restless legs syndrome…)

Pooled randomized-trial result; treatment class and trial populations varied.

Weighted pooled short-term trial effect.

Single crossover trial; not a population outcome.

Relapse required a specified IRLS and CGI worsening definition.

Small short-term RCT; treatment was studied in adults without iron deficiency.

Small trial and short follow-up.

Trial participants had a placebo run-in and flexible dosing; not a general-population response rate.

Dose finding in a clinical trial; not a universal dosing recommendation.

Trial observation, not a dose threshold for all patients.

Restless legs syndrome treatment statistics: adverse effects and sleep outcomes

Pooled short-term evidence across 16 trials.

Pooled trial result; adverse-event profiles differ by drug.

Pooled short-term trial adverse-event reporting.

Pooled short-term trial outcome.

Specific to transdermal rotigotine trials.

Table of contents