Impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease patients treated with pramipexole and ropinirole: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lenise G. Soileau, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Norris C. Talbot, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Nicholas R. Storey, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Noah J. Spillers, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
James V. D’antoni, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Peter C. Carr, LSU Health Sciences Center - New Orleans
Connor M. Galardo, University of Southern Mississippi
Patil Shilpadevi, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Shahab Ahmadzadeh, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Sahar Shekoohi, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport
Alan D. Kaye, LSU Health Sciences Center - Shreveport

Abstract

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.