Connor M. Galardo
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Connor M. Galardo has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Alan David Kaye
Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71103, USA
1 shared publication - James V. D’aNtoni
School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, USA
1 shared publication - Lenise G. Soileau
School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, USA
1 shared publication - Nicholas R. Storey
School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, USA
1 shared publication - Noah J. Spillers
School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA 71103, USA
1 shared publication - Norris C. Talbot
School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 11 December 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in Neurological Sciences
- Vol. 45 (4) , 1399-1408
Impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease patients treated with pramipexole and ropinirole: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background This analysis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing occurrences of ICD in PD patients treated with oral DAs: ropinirole (ROP) and pramipexole (PRX). This study compares the two oral DAs to a transdermal patch, rotigotine (RTG). Methods We performed an extensive systematic search for eligible studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The data was analyzed by various software, including EndNote, Rayyan, PRISM, and RevMan. Two studies incorporating 658 patients collectively were assessed. Results This meta-analysis shows a significant correlation between the usage of PRX (25.3%) or ROP (21.8%) and the development of ICD in PD patients. Compared to the transdermal patch, RTG, PRX was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 3.46 (95% CI 2.07–5.76), and ROP was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 2.98 (95% CI 1.77–5.02). The data collected shows RTG is approximately three times less likely to cause ICDs than oral PRX and ROP. Conclusion The present investigation provides insight into ICD occurrences with PRX, ROP, and RTG to allow physicians to make more informed decisions on risk versus reward when deciding how to treat a PD patient with these drugs. However, related to various disclosed limitations, our conclusion cannot provide definitive practice protocols.
- 11 December 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in Neurological Sciences
- Vol. 45 (4) , 1399-1408
Impulse control disorders in Parkinson’s disease patients treated with pramipexole and ropinirole: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background This analysis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing occurrences of ICD in PD patients treated with oral DAs: ropinirole (ROP) and pramipexole (PRX). This study compares the two oral DAs to a transdermal patch, rotigotine (RTG). Methods We performed an extensive systematic search for eligible studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The data was analyzed by various software, including EndNote, Rayyan, PRISM, and RevMan. Two studies incorporating 658 patients collectively were assessed. Results This meta-analysis shows a significant correlation between the usage of PRX (25.3%) or ROP (21.8%) and the development of ICD in PD patients. Compared to the transdermal patch, RTG, PRX was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 3.46 (95% CI 2.07–5.76), and ROP was found to have a significant relative risk (P < 0.0001) of 2.98 (95% CI 1.77–5.02). The data collected shows RTG is approximately three times less likely to cause ICDs than oral PRX and ROP. Conclusion The present investigation provides insight into ICD occurrences with PRX, ROP, and RTG to allow physicians to make more informed decisions on risk versus reward when deciding how to treat a PD patient with these drugs. However, related to various disclosed limitations, our conclusion cannot provide definitive practice protocols.