%0 Journal Article
%T Risk factors for impulse control disorders and related behaviors in Parkinson¡¯s disease: secondary analyses of the ICARUS study
%A Angelo Antonini
%A Karin Annoni
%A Mahnaz Asgharnejad
%A Paolo Barone
%A Paolo Stanzione
%A Ubaldo Bonuccelli
%J Journal of Drug Assessment
%D 2019
%R https://doi.org/10.1080/21556660.2019.1675670
%X Abstract Objective: Impulse control disorders and related behaviors (ICDs) are common in patients with Parkinson¡¯s disease (PD), yet incidence and predictive factors are not fully understood. We examined the epidemiology of ICDs in PD through secondary and post-hoc analyses of data from the ICARUS (SP0990) study, which enrolled >1000 patients. Methods: Using a modified-Minnesota Impulsive Disorders Interview (mMIDI), ICD incidence was calculated for patients who were ICD-negative at baseline but ICD-positive at year 1, and year 1 and/or 2 (cumulative 2-year ICD incidence). The proportion of ¡°new cases¡± (ICD-negative at baseline, but ICD-positive at year 1 or 2), and ¡°remitters¡± (ICD-positive at baseline but ICD-negative at year 1 or 2) was also calculated for the whole ICARUS population. Results: Among 709 patients ICD-negative at baseline, 97 screened ICD-positive (13.7%) at year 1. Among 712 patients who were ICD-negative at baseline, 147 were ICD-positive at ¡İ1 post-baseline visit (20.6%). Among patients who were ICD-negative at baseline who subsequently experienced an ICD, a higher proportion were male or smokers, younger at baseline, younger at disease/symptom onset, and had longer disease duration. Among the whole population, a similar proportion were ¡°new cases¡± at years 1 (9.7%) and 2 (8.6%) versus the previous visit. The proportion of ¡°remitters¡± was slightly higher at year 2 (11.0%) than 1 (9.1%) versus previous visit. Conclusions: The proportion of ICD-remitters approximately matched/exceeded new cases, suggesting patients with ICD are in a state of flux. Current data allow for a conservative estimate of 2-year ICD incidence in ICARUS of ¡«21% of patients, not accounting for transient new ICD cases between visits
%U https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21556660.2019.1675670