[Gambling addiction as a side effect of low dose pramipexole in the treatment of restless legs syndrome]

Pathologic gambling is a rare but severe side effect of dopamine agonists (DA). Low dosage DA, as given when treating restless legs syndrome (RLS), has been thought only to have mild side effects. This case report describes two patients with low dosage pramipexole for RLS, who developed gambling addiction for a decade, highly affecting their quality of life. After stopping the treatment, the patients' gambling addiction ceased. Even though this is a very rare side effect, patients prescribed a DA should be informed of the risk of gambling addiction, independently of dosage.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with pramipexole and levodopa vs levodopa monotherapy in patients with Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pramipexole (P) or levodopa (L) treatment has been suggested as a therapeutic method for Parkinson disease (PD) in many clinical studies. Nonetheless, the combined effects of 2 drugs for PD patients are not completely understood.The aim of this research was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of P plus L (P+L) combination therapy in the treatment of PD compared to that of L monotherapy, in order to confer a reference for clinical practice.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of P+L for PD published up to April, 2020 were retrieved. Standardized mean difference (SMD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was measured with the I2 test. Sensitivity analysis was also carried out. The outcomes of interest were as follows: the efficacy, unified Parkinson disease rating scale (UPDRS) scores, Hamilton depression rating scale score or adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs with 2171 participants were included. Clinical efficacy of P+L combination therapy was significantly better than L monotherapy (9 trials; OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.78 to 6.64, P < .00001). Compared with L monotherapy, the pooled effects of P+L combination therapy on UPDRS score were (22 trials; SMD -1.31, 95% CI -1.57 to -1.04, P < .00001) for motor UPDRS score, (16 trials; SMD -1.26, 95% CI -1.49 to -1.03, P < .00001) for activities of daily living UPDRS score, (12 trials; SMD -1.02, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.77, P < .00001) for mental UPDRS score, (10 trials; SMD -1.54, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.15, P < .00001) for complication UPDRS score. The Hamilton depression rating scale score showed significant decrease in the P+L combination therapy compared to L monotherapy (12 trials; SMD -1.56, 95% CI -1.90 to -1.22, P < .00001). In contrast to L monotherapy, P+L combination therapy reduced the number of any adverse events obviously in PD patients (16 trials; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.50, P < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

P+L combination therapy is superior to L monotherapy for improvement of clinical symptoms in PD patients. Moreover, the safety profile of P+L combination therapy is better than that of L monotherapy. Further well-designed, multicenter RCTs needed to identify these findings.

Pramipexole to Improve Cognition in Bipolar Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Adults with bipolar disorder (BD) often experience neurocognitive impairment that negatively impacts functioning and quality of life. Previous trials have found that dopamine agonist agents improve cognition in healthy volunteers and that adults with BD who have stable mood and mild cognitive deficits may also benefit. We hypothesized that pramipexole, a dopamine agonist, would improve neurocognitive function in patients with BD.

METHODS

We recruited 60 adults (aged 18-65 years) with a diagnosis of BD I or II for an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02397837). All had stable mood and clinically significant neurocognitive impairment at baseline. Participants were randomized to receive pramipexole (n = 31) or a placebo (n = 29), dose was initiated at 0.125 mg 2 times a day and increased to a target of 4.5 mg/d.

RESULTS

At trial end, the primary outcome, MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery composite score, had not improved more in the pramipexole group (mean [SD] = 1.15 [5.4]) than in the placebo group (mean [SD] = 4.12 [5.2], Cohen's d = 0.56, P = 0.049), and mixed models, controlling for symptoms, showed no association between treatment group and MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery scores. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that pramipexole is not an efficacious cognitive enhancement agent in BD, even in a sample enriched for characteristics that were associated with a beneficial response in prior work. There are distinct cognitive subgroups among adults with BD and may be related differences in neurobiology that affect response to pramipexole. Additional research to better understand the onset and nature of the cognitive deficits in people with BD will be an important step toward a more personalized approach to treatment.

Augmentation in patients with restless legs syndrome receiving pramipexole therapy: a retrospective study in a single center from China

PURPOSE

Augmentation is a major complication of long-term pramipexole treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS). However, there have been no studies on augmentation in Chinese patients with RLS. We therefore investigated the clinical characteristics of augmentation in RLS patients treated with pramipexole in a real-world Chinese setting.

METHODS

This study was an observational, retrospective assessment of 103 patients with RLS, who had been continuously treated with pramipexole for at least one month between January 2016 and December 2018 in a tertiary hospital in East China. Demographic data and disease and drug treatment information were collected from electronic medical records and telephone interviews to analyze the rate and clinical features of augmentation. Augmentation was confirmed by Max Planck Institute criteria. Comparisons were made between patients with and without augmentation.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (15%) were classified as having augmentation. Compared to RLS patients without augmentation, more patients with augmentation switched from other dopaminergic drugs (P<0.05) and had a longer duration of RLS symptoms before pramipexole treatment (P<0.05). In addition, patients with augmentation had a longer duration (P<0.05) and higher dosage (P<0.05) of pramipexole than those without augmentation. Augmentation was possibly associated with pramipexole tolerance (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

The augmentation rate of the Chinese RLS patients in our study was 15%. Augmentation may be associated with switching from other dopaminergic drugs, long disease duration before pramipexole use, the dose and duration of pramipexole, and tolerance to pramipexole.

Drugs-Induced Pathological Gambling: An Analysis of Italian Spontaneous Reporting System

Pathological gambling has been reported as a direct complication of Parkinson’s disease and its pharmacological treatment based on dopamine agonists. Moreover, further medications (not dopamine agonists) were associated to the occurrence of gambling disorder. We aim to analyze the spontaneous reports of gambling disorder on the whole Italian territory with a focus on Campania Region (Southern Italy) from January 1st 2002 to July 31st 2018. We analyzed gambling disorder’s reports across the 2002–2018 period in the Italian spontaneous reporting database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza—RNF), with a focus on Campania region. 94 suspected cases of gambling disorder associated to apomorphine, aripiprazole, cabergoline, levodopa, levodopa and derivatives in association with entacapone/benserazide and carbidopa, pergolide, pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine were reported into the RNF. Of these cases, two related to pramipexole and one to aripiprazole were sent to Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Centre. Although it is widely recognized that dopamine agonists may induce behavioral disorders, Parkinson’s disease is itself associated to pathological gambling, compulsive shopping and eating. Since our results could not clarify the correlation between Parkinson’s disease, its pharmacological treatment and pathological gambling, in order to better define this correlation there is a need to conduct further ad hoc observational studies.

What drugs modify the risk of iatrogenic impulse-control disorders in Parkinson's disease? A preliminary pharmacoepidemiologic study

INTRODUCTION

Parkinson's disease (PD) patients treated with pramipexole (PPX) and ropinirole (ROP) exhibit a higher risk of developing impulse control disorders (ICDs), including gambling disorder, compulsive shopping, and hypersexuality. The management of ICDs in PD is challenging, due to the limited availability of effective therapeutic alternatives or counteractive strategies. Here, we used a pharmacoepidemiological approach to verify whether the risk for PPX/ROP-associated ICDs in PD patients was reduced by drugs that have been posited to exert therapeutic effects on idiopathic ICDs-including atypical antipsychotics (AAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and glutamatergic modulators (GMs).

METHODS

To quantify the strength of the associations between PPX/ROP and other medications with respect to ICD risk, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, gender, marital status race, psychiatric comorbidities, and use of cabergoline and levodopa.

RESULTS

A total of 935 patients were included in the analysis. Use of GMs, SSRIs, and AAs was not associated with a decreased ICD risk in PD patients treated with PPX/ROP; conversely, ICD risk was significantly increased in patients treated with either GMs (Adjusted Odds Ratio, ORa: 14.00 [3.58-54.44]) or SSRIs (ORa: 3.67 [1.07-12.59]). Results were inconclusive for AAs, as available data were insufficient to compute a reliable ORa.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that some of the key pharmacological strategies used to treat idiopathic ICD may not be effective for ICDs associated with PPX and ROP in PD patients. Future studies with larger cohorts are needed to confirm, validate, and extend these findings.

Iron for the treatment of restless legs syndrome

BACKGROUND

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common neurologic disorder that is associated with peripheral iron deficiency in a subgroup of patients. It is unclear whether iron therapy is effective treatment for RLS.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral or parenteral iron for the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) when compared with placebo or other therapies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycNFO, and CINAHL for the time period January 1995 to September 2017. We searched reference lists for additional published studies. We searched Clinicaltrials.gov and other clinical trial registries (September 2017) for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials comparing any formulation of iron with placebo, other medications, or no treatment, in adults diagnosed with RLS according to expert clinical interview or explicit diagnostic criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality, with discussion to reach consensus in the case of any disagreement. The primary outcome considered in this review was restlessness or unpleasant sensations, as experienced subjectively by the patient. We combined treatment/control differences in the outcomes across studies using random-effects meta-analyses. We analysed continuous data using mean differences (MDs) where possible and performed standardised mean difference (SMD) analyses when different measurements were used across studies. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data using the Mantel-Haenszel method and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed study heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We performed GRADE analysis using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 10 studies (428 total participants, followed for 2-16 weeks) in this review. Our primary outcome was restlessness or uncomfortable leg sensations, which was quantified using the International Restless Legs Scale (IRLS) (range, 0 to 40) in eight trials and a different RLS symptom scale in a ninth trial. Nine studies compared iron to placebo and one study compared iron to a dopamine agonist (pramipexole). The possibility for bias among the trials was variable. Three studies had a single element with high risk of bias, which was lack of blinding in two and incomplete outcome data in one. All studies had at least one feature resulting in unclear risk of bias.Combining data from the seven trials using the IRLS to compare iron and placebo, use of iron resulted in greater improvement in IRLS scores (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.25 to -1.31; I²= 66%, 7 studies, 345 participants) measured 2 to 12 weeks after treatment. Including an eighth study, which measured restlessness using a different scale, use of iron remained beneficial compared to placebo (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.23; I² = 80%, 8 studies, 370 participants). The GRADE assessment of certainty for this outcome was moderate.The single study comparing iron to a dopamine agonist (pramipexole) found a similar reduction in RLS severity in the two groups (MD -0.40, 95% CI -5.93 to 5.13, 30 participants).Assessment of secondary outcomes was limited by small numbers of trials assessing each outcome. Iron did not improve quality of life as a dichotomous measure (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.54 to 7.45; I²=54%, 2 studies, 39 participants), but did improve quality of life measured on continuous scales (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; I²= 0%, 3 studies, 128 participants), compared to placebo. Subjective sleep quality was no different between iron and placebo groups (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.56; I² = 9%, 3 studies, 128 participants), nor was objective sleep quality, as measured by change in sleep efficiency in a single study (-35.5 +/- 92.0 versus -41.4 +/- 98.2, 18 participants). Periodic limb movements of sleep were not significantly reduced with iron compared to placebo ( SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.32; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 60 participants). Iron did not improve sleepiness compared to placebo, as measured on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (data not provided, 1 study, 60 participants) but did improve the daytime tiredness item of the RLS-6 compared to placebo (least squares mean difference -1.5, 95% CI -2.5 to -0.6; 1 study, 110 participants). The GRADE rating for secondary outcomes ranged from low to very low.Prespecified subgroup analyses showed more improvement with iron in those trials studying participants on dialysis. The use of low serum ferritin levels as an inclusion criteria and the use or oral versus intravenous iron did not show significant subgroup differences.Iron did not result in significantly more adverse events than placebo (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.25; I²=45%, 6 studies, 298 participants). A single study reported that people treated with iron therapy experienced fewer adverse events than the active comparator pramipexole.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Iron therapy probably improves restlessness and RLS severity in comparison to placebo. Iron therapy may not increase the risk of side effects in comparison to placebo. We are uncertain whether iron therapy improves quality of life in comparison to placebo. Iron therapy may make little or no difference to pramipexole in restlessness and RLS severity, as well as in the risk of adverse events. The effect on secondary outcomes such as quality of life, daytime functioning, and sleep quality, the optimal timing and formulation of administration, and patient characteristics predicting response require additional study.

Lesson of the month 2: An unusual adverse reaction associated with pramipexole

Dopamine agonists such as pramipexole are commonly used in the treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) as well as Parkinson's disease. Pramipexole's common side effects are well documented; however, adverse skin reactions are less well known. In this case, a 45-year-old male farmer presented with excessive daytime tiredness and reported a history suggestive of RLS. He was initiated on pramipexole but developed a maculopapular erythematous rash in sun-exposed areas 8 days after its commencement. The skin rash resolved following pramipexole's cessation and it is thought the patient experienced a drug-induced photosensitivity reaction to pramipexole. This case highlights the potential for photosensitivity reactions to pramipexole, which is especially significant in countries like Australia where UV solar radiation is especially high.