[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: At the 2008 annual meeting of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), a symposium was devoted to the following question: 'what have we learned about the design of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) from the recent costly long-term, large-scale trials of psychiatric treatments?' in order to inform the design of future trials. In all, 10 recommendations were generated placing emphasis on (1) appropriate conduct of pragmatic trials; (2) clinical, rather than, merely statistical significance; (3) sampling from the population clinicians are called upon to treat; (4) clinical outcomes of patients, rather than, on outcome measures; (5) use of stratification, controlling, or adjusting when necessary and not otherwise; (6) appropriate consideration of site differences in multisite studies; (7) encouragement of 'post hoc' exploration to generate (not test) hypotheses; (8) precise articulation of the treatment strategy to be tested and use of the corresponding appropriate design; (9) expanded opportunity for training of researchers and reviewers in RCT principles; and (10) greater emphasis on data sharing.
Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 12/2010; 35(13):2491-501. · 8.68 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Early, effective treatment in first-episode schizophrenia is advocated, although evidence based on a systematic approach over multiple antipsychotic trials is lacking. Employing a naturalistic design, we examined response rates over 3 circumscribed antipsychotic trials.
Between June 2003 and December 2008, 244 individuals with first-episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder according to DSM-IV criteria were treated at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, following an algorithm that moved them through 2 antipsychotic trials, followed by a trial with clozapine. For the first 2 trials, treatment consisted of risperidone followed by olanzapine, or vice versa; each trial consisted of 3 stages (low-, full-, or high-dose) lasting up to 4 weeks at each level and adjusted according to response/tolerability. Clinical response was defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of 2 (much improved) or 1 (very much improved) and/or a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Thought Disorder subscale score ≤ 6. Data were analyzed retrospectively, and publication of anonymized clinical data was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in May 2003.
In trial 1, 74.5% of individuals responded, with rates significantly higher for olanzapine (82.1%, 115/140) versus risperidone (66.3%, 69/104; P = .005). With trial 2, response rate dropped dramatically to 16.6% but again was significantly higher for olanzapine (25.7%, 9/35) compared to risperidone (4.0%, 1/25; P = .04). Response rate climbed above 70% once more, specifically 75.0% (21/28), in those individuals who agreed to a third trial with clozapine.
Results confirm a high response rate (75%) to initial antipsychotic treatment in first-episode schizophrenia. A considerably lower response rate (< 20%) occurs with a second antipsychotic trial. Results here were specific to olanzapine and risperidone, suggesting clinical differences (ie, olanzapine more effective than risperidone). A subsequent trial with clozapine is clearly warranted, although it remains unclear whether outcome would be further enhanced if it were used earlier in the treatment algorithm.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 03/2011; 72(11):1439-44. · 5.81 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.