Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundDopamine receptor agonist drugs, which are used, for example, to treat Parkinson's disease (PD), increase the risk for impulse control disorders (ICDs), potentially resulting in devastating psychosocial consequences. It is unknown whether other drugs with dopaminergic properties also increase the risk for ICDs. This study assesses the disproportionality of reporting ICDs between drugs with dopaminergic properties and selected non-dopaminergic drugs.MethodsA case/non-case disproportionality analysis was performed, using data from VigiBase (1968-2020). Reports on ICDs as suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were cases (n=852), and those with ADRs other than ICDs were non-cases (n=281,720). Relative reporting frequencies were expressed as adjusted reporting odds ratios (aRORs). Within the dopamine receptor agonists, the relationship between reporting odds ratios and dopamine receptor occupancy was explored.ResultsA high disproportionality was found for reporting ICDs for all dopaminergic drugs (aROR 20.4 [95% CI 17.4-24.1]) compared to non-dopaminergic drugs. In pharmacotherapeutic subgroups, a high disproportionality was found for primary dopaminergic agents used in PD (aROR 52.1 [95% CI 44.1-61.5]), and to a lesser extent for ADHD psychostimulants and antidepressants (aROR 5.8 [95% 4.1-8.3] and aROR 3.9 [95% CI 2.9-5.6], respectively). There was no difference in reporting by consumers and healthcare professionals. The highest disproportionality was found for the dopamine receptor agonists pramipexole and ropinirole.ConclusionsA signal of disproportion in ICD occurrence was found among all investigated drugs with dopaminergic properties, highlighting the importance of counselling and monitoring for ICDs when prescribing dopaminergic drugs.
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.