TY - JOUR
T1 - Quantifying Clinical Relevance in the Treatment of Schizophrenia
AU - Correll, Christoph U.
AU - Kishimoto, Taishiro
AU - Nielsen, Jimmi
AU - Kane, John M.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported in part by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Advanced Center for Services and Intervention Research, The Zucker Hillside Hospital ( P30MH090590 ). All authors contributed equally to the design of the paper and to the literature search. Dr. Correll provided the first full draft that included sections provided by each of the three co-authors. All authors contributed equally to the interpretation of the presented data and to the revision of the text. We would like to thank Susan Schiavi who assisted Dr. Kishimoto in numbering the references.
Funding Information:
Dr. Correll has been a consultant and/or advisor to or has received honoraria from Actelion, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cephalon, Eli Lilly, IntraCellular Therapies, Ortho-McNeill/Janssen/J&J, Merck, Novartis, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Sepracor/Sunovion. He has received grant support from the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research , the NIMH , the National Alliance for Research in Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), and Ortho-McNeill/Janssen/J&J . Dr. Kishimoto has received speaker's honoraria from Banyu, Eli Lilly, Dainippon Sumitomo, Janssen, Novartis, Otsuka and Pfizer. He has received grant support from the Byoutaitaisyakenkyukai Fellowship (Fellowship of Astellas Foundation of Research on Metabolic Disorders) and Eli Lilly Fellowship for Clinical Psychopharmacology . Dr. Nielsen has received research grants from H. Lundbeck , Pfizer and Chempaq for clinical trials and received speaking fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astra Zeneca, Janssen & Cilag, Lundbeck and Eli-Lilly. Dr. Kane has been a consultant to Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dainippon Sumitomo/Sepracor/Sunovion, Johnson & Johnson, Otsuka, Vanda, Proteus, Takeda, Targacept, IntraCellular Therapies, Merck, Lundbeck, Novartis, Roche, Rules Based Medicine, Sunovion and has received honoraria for lectures from Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Esai, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Janssen. He has received grant support from The NIMH . The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest with regard to the content of the article.
PY - 2011/12
Y1 - 2011/12
N2 - Background: To optimize the management of patients with schizophrenia, quantification of treatment effects is crucial. While in research studies, the use of quantitative assessments is ubiquitous, this is not the case in routine clinical practice, creating an important translational practice gap. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the relevance, methodology, reporting, and application of measurement-based approaches in the management of schizophrenia. Methods: We summarized methodological aspects in the assessment of therapeutic and adverse antipsychotic effects in schizophrenia, including definitions and methods of measurement-based assessments and factors that can interfere with the valid quantification of treatment effects. Finally, we proposed pragmatic and clinically meaningful ways to measure and report treatment outcomes. Results: Although rating scales are ubiquitous in schizophrenia research and provide the evidence base for treatment guidelines, time constraints and lack of familiarity with and/or training in validated assessment tools limit their routine clinical use. Simple but valid assessment instruments need to be developed and implemented to bridge this research-practice gap. In addition, results from research trials need to be communicated in clinically meaningful ways, including the reporting of effect sizes, numbers-needed-to-treat and -harm, confidence intervals, and absolute risk differences. Some important outcomes, such as treatment response, should be reported in escalating intervals using incrementally more stringent psychopathology improvements. Even with quantification, it remains challenging to weigh individual efficacy and adverse effect outcomes against one another and decide on the targeted or desired improvement or outcomes while also incorporating these in patient-centered and shared decision methods. Conclusions: Quantification of treatment effects in schizophrenia is relevant for patient management, research, and the evaluation of health care systems. Beyond consensus about meaningful outcomes definitions, reporting strategies, pragmatic tool development and implementation, the discovery of novel treatment mechanisms and related biomarkers is hoped to advance measurement-based approaches in schizophrenia and thereby improve patient outcomes.
AB - Background: To optimize the management of patients with schizophrenia, quantification of treatment effects is crucial. While in research studies, the use of quantitative assessments is ubiquitous, this is not the case in routine clinical practice, creating an important translational practice gap. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the relevance, methodology, reporting, and application of measurement-based approaches in the management of schizophrenia. Methods: We summarized methodological aspects in the assessment of therapeutic and adverse antipsychotic effects in schizophrenia, including definitions and methods of measurement-based assessments and factors that can interfere with the valid quantification of treatment effects. Finally, we proposed pragmatic and clinically meaningful ways to measure and report treatment outcomes. Results: Although rating scales are ubiquitous in schizophrenia research and provide the evidence base for treatment guidelines, time constraints and lack of familiarity with and/or training in validated assessment tools limit their routine clinical use. Simple but valid assessment instruments need to be developed and implemented to bridge this research-practice gap. In addition, results from research trials need to be communicated in clinically meaningful ways, including the reporting of effect sizes, numbers-needed-to-treat and -harm, confidence intervals, and absolute risk differences. Some important outcomes, such as treatment response, should be reported in escalating intervals using incrementally more stringent psychopathology improvements. Even with quantification, it remains challenging to weigh individual efficacy and adverse effect outcomes against one another and decide on the targeted or desired improvement or outcomes while also incorporating these in patient-centered and shared decision methods. Conclusions: Quantification of treatment effects in schizophrenia is relevant for patient management, research, and the evaluation of health care systems. Beyond consensus about meaningful outcomes definitions, reporting strategies, pragmatic tool development and implementation, the discovery of novel treatment mechanisms and related biomarkers is hoped to advance measurement-based approaches in schizophrenia and thereby improve patient outcomes.
KW - Adverse effects
KW - Antipsychotics
KW - Effectiveness
KW - Efficacy
KW - Measurement
KW - Quantification
KW - Real world
KW - Schizophrenia
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=83455219307&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=83455219307&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.016
DO - 10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.11.016
M3 - Review article
C2 - 22177377
AN - SCOPUS:83455219307
SN - 0149-2918
VL - 33
SP - B16-B39
JO - Clinical Therapeutics
JF - Clinical Therapeutics
IS - 12
ER -