SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Impulse control disorders in patients with pituitary adenoma managed with or without dopamine agonists: a cross-sectional study from a UK centre.

Pituitary · 2025-04-21

DOI: 10.1007/s11102-025-01517-0PMID: 40257641

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeStudies from various countries raise concerns on the association between dopamine agonist (DA) treatment and impulse control disorders (ICDs) in patients with pituitary adenomas. We investigated the prevalence of ICDs in patients with pituitary adenomas in a UK centre using two instruments applied in clinical practice for assessing ICDs.MethodsCross-sectional study of adults with prolactinoma, acromegaly or non-functioning pituitary adenoma (NFPA) treated or not with DAs in a pituitary centre. Screening tools for ICD were the Minnesota Impulse Disorders Interview (MIDI) and Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (QUIP-RS).ResultsData from 200 patients were analysed [72 prolactinomas (on DA), 71 NFPAs (no DA), 57 with acromegaly (12 on DA)]. The percentage of patients scoring for any ICD was higher in the prolactinoma on DA group compared with the NFPA cases; MIDI 12.7% vs. 1.4% (p = 0.02) and QUIP-RS 46.5% vs. 18.6% (p ConclusionsIn this sample of UK patients, prevalence of ICDs is higher in prolactinoma patients on DA compared to those with NFPA not on DA. Differences were not observed between patients with acromegaly treated or not with DA. Different ICD assessment tools have an impact on the detected outcomes.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.