Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
Impulse control disorders in Parkinson's disease patients treated with pramipexole and ropinirole: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Soileau Lenise G, Talbot Norris C, Storey Nicholas R, Spillers Noah J, D'antoni James V, Carr Peter C, Galardo Connor M, Shilpadevi Patil, Ahmadzadeh Shahab, Shekoohi Sahar, Kaye Alan D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This analysis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing occurrences of ICD in PD patients treated with oral DAs: ropinirole (ROP) and pramipexole (PRX). This study compares the two oral DAs to a transdermal patch, rotigotine (RTG).
METHODS: We performed an extensive systematic search for eligible studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The data was analyzed by various software, including EndNote, Rayyan, PRISM, and RevMan. Two studies incorporating 658 patients collectively were assessed.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis shows a significant correlation between the usage of PRX (25.3%) or ROP (21.8%) and the development of ICD in PD patients. Compared to the transdermal patch, RTG, PRX was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 3.46 (95% CI 2.07-5.76), and ROP was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 2.98 (95% CI 1.77-5.02). The data collected shows RTG is approximately three times less likely to cause ICDs than oral PRX and ROP.
CONCLUSION: The present investigation provides insight into ICD occurrences with PRX, ROP, and RTG to allow physicians to make more informed decisions on risk versus reward when deciding how to treat a PD patient with these drugs. However, related to various disclosed limitations, our conclusion cannot provide definitive practice protocols.
METHODS: We performed an extensive systematic search for eligible studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The data was analyzed by various software, including EndNote, Rayyan, PRISM, and RevMan. Two studies incorporating 658 patients collectively were assessed.
RESULTS: This meta-analysis shows a significant correlation between the usage of PRX (25.3%) or ROP (21.8%) and the development of ICD in PD patients. Compared to the transdermal patch, RTG, PRX was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 3.46 (95% CI 2.07-5.76), and ROP was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 2.98 (95% CI 1.77-5.02). The data collected shows RTG is approximately three times less likely to cause ICDs than oral PRX and ROP.
CONCLUSION: The present investigation provides insight into ICD occurrences with PRX, ROP, and RTG to allow physicians to make more informed decisions on risk versus reward when deciding how to treat a PD patient with these drugs. However, related to various disclosed limitations, our conclusion cannot provide definitive practice protocols.