4.1 Article

A Single-Center, Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Impulse Control Disorders in Parkinson Disease Association With Dopaminergic Drugs

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 691-694

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3182979830

关键词

Parkinson disease; impulse control disorders; dopamine agonists; levodopa; delusions; hallucinations; psychosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study aimed at establishing the prevalence of impulse control disorders (ICDs) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and their association with demographic, drug-related, and disease-related characteristics. We performed a single-center cross-sectional study of 805 PD patients. Impulse control disorders were investigated with the Questionnaire for Impulsive Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease; also comorbid neuropsychiatric complications (dementia, delusions, visual hallucinations) were investigated with clinical interviews and ad hoc instruments (Parkinson Psychosis Questionnaire and Neuropsychiatry Inventory). Impulse control disorders were identified in 65 patients (prevalence, 8.1%), with pathological gambling and hypersexuality the most frequent. Impulse control disorders were present in 57 of 593 cognitively preserved patients (prevalence, 9.6%) and in 8 of 212 demented patients (prevalence, 3.8%). Impulse control disorders were significantly associated with dopamine agonists (odds ratio [OR], 5.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60-12.46; P < 0.0001) and levodopa (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.06-6.35; P = 0.034). Impulse control disorders frequency was similar for pramipexole and ropinirole (16.6% vs 12.5%; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.79-2.74; P = 0.227). Additional variables associated with ICDs were male sex and younger age. These findings suggested that dopaminergic treatments in PD are associated with increased odds of having an ICD, but also other demographic and clinical variables are associated with ICDs, suggesting the multifactorial nature of the ICD phenomenon in PD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据