Non-Ergot Dopamine Agonists Do Not Increase the Risk of Heart Failure in Parkinson’s Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, some observational studies suggested that pramipexole, a non-ergot dopamine agonist (DA) used for the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD), may increase the risk of heart failure (HF). However, the limitations inherent in observational studies made it difficult to determine whether the excess of incident HF was related to the drug or to other determinants. Thus, some concerns remained regarding the increased putative HF risk associated with non-ergot DAs as a class or individually. METHODS: In our meta-analysis, primary endpoint was the risk of incident HF in patients with PD treated with non-ergot DAs compared to those treated with monotherapy with levodopa. Secondary outcome measures were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. For these purposes, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered, provided that they offered complete outcome data pertaining to the incident HF, all-cause mortality and risk of cardiovascular events. Systematic searches were performed in the databases of PubMed, Embase and ClinicalTrial.gov up to May 2015. The effect size was estimated using the pooled relative risk (RR) of non-ergot DAs versus placebo on incident HF as well as on all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Six out of 27 RCTs reported at least one case of incident HF; therefore, we included them in the RR estimate, whereas 13 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis for mortality rates and 22 RCTs were included to evaluate cardiovascular events. Treatment with non-ergot DAs did not reveal an increase in the risk of incident HF as compared with the placebo group (pooled RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.30 - 2.90; P = 0.893). Similarly, patients treated with non-ergot DAs did not show any significant differences compared to controls with regard to all-cause mortality (pooled RR: 0.617; 95% CI: 0.330 - 1.153; P = 0.13) as well as with regard to cardiovascular events (pooled RR: 1.067; 95% CI: 0.663 - 1.717; P = 0.789). CONCLUSIONS: The use of non-ergot DAs in PD patients was not associated with an increased risk of incident HF, nor was it shown to increase the overall mortality or the risk of cardiovascular events compared to the PD patients taking monotherapy with levodopa alone. However, larger studies are warranted to confirm the cardiovascular safety of non-ergot DAs for PD management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.067 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".