Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40065414›Full record

ArticleBMC pharmacology & toxicology2025

Comparative safety signals of dopamine agonists: psychiatric and cardiovascular risks derived from FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS) data.

Li Mu, Jing Xu, Xiaomei Ye, Yongxian Jiang, Zhanmiao Yi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Li MuDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Jing XuDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Xiaomei YeDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Yongxian JiangDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China.
Zhanmiao YiDepartment of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, No.49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China. yzm@bjmu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 72104003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDopamine receptor agonists (DAs) are widely used as first-line therapeutic agents for Parkinson's disease. However, comparative clinical trials assessing their safety profiles are limited. This study aims to compare adverse event (AE) data across various DAs to inform personalized treatment strategies.

methodsAE reports with DAs as the "primary suspicion (PS)" were extracted from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, covering 67 quarters from the second quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2023. Four disproportionality analysis methods, including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN) and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), were employed to evaluate the risk of AEs.

resultsA total of 19,745,533 DA-related AEs reports were analyzed. The six DAs-pramipexole, ropinirole, cabergoline, rotigotine, bromocriptine and apomorphine-generated 269, 246, 202, 163, 146, and 135 preferred terms positive signals, respectively. Non-ergot DAs (pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine and apomorphine) were primarily associated with psychiatric disorders and reported more hallucinations than ergot-derived dopamine agonists (ergot-DAs), with ropinirole showing a slightly higher signal intensity than pramipexole (ROR = 15.76 vs. 11.23). Pramipexole demonstrated the most significant signal for impulse control disorders (ICDs). Compared with pramipexole and ropinirole, rotigotine generally exhibits milder signals in terms of psychiatric disorders such as hallucinations, ICDs, and sleep-related AEs. Administration site-related AEs were more prominent in rotigotine and apomorphine users. Ergot-DAs exhibited higher signal intensities for cardiac disorders, with cabergoline also showing a notable signal for amnestic symptoms (ROR = 340.54), which is not mentioned in the drug label.

conclusionThis study elucidates the distinct safety profiles of six DAs. Non-ergot DAs are primarily associated with psychiatric AEs, while administration-related AEs are more notable for rotigotine and apomorphine. Ergot-DAs present a higher risk for cardiac valvulopathies. These findings highlight the importance of individualized treatment considerations in clinical practice, emphasizing the need to formulate appropriate treatment plans on patients' specific conditions.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCardiovascular DiseasesDopamine AgonistsMental DisordersBayes TheoremDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMaleParkinson DiseaseUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationDopamine AgonistsAdverse eventsDopamine receptor agonistsFAERSPsychiatric disordersRisk signal mining

Identifiers

PMID40065414
PMCPMC11892196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.