PubMed · 14719045
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Russell T Joffe. 2004. Does lithium save lives?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14719045/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The treatment of schizophrenia has evolved over the past half century primarily in the context of antipsychotic drug development. Although there has been significant progress resulting in the availability and use of numerous medications, these reflect three basic classes of medications (conventional (typical), atypical and dopamine partial agonist antipsychotics) all of which, despite working by varying mechanisms of actions, act principally on dopamine systems. Many of the second-generation (atypical and dopamine partial agonist) antipsychotics are believed to offer advantages over first-generation agents in the treatment for schizophrenia. However, the pharmacological properties that confer the different therapeutic effects of the new generation of antipsychotic drugs have remained elusive, and certain side effects can still impact patient health and quality of life. Moreover, the efficacy of antipsychotic drugs is limited prompting the clinical use of adjunctive pharmacy to augment the effects of treatment. In addition, the search for novel and nondopaminergic antipsychotic drugs has not been successful to date, though numerous development strategies continue to be pursued, guided by various pathophysiologic hypotheses. This article provides a brief review and critique of the current therapeutic armamentarium for treating schizophrenia and drug development strategies and theories of mechanisms of action of antipsychotics, and focuses on novel targets for therapeutic agents for future drug development.
BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a common severe syndrome with a highly variable pattern of symptoms. The medications used to treat this disorder are expensive and may cause severe adverse effects. Little is known about how the public perceives health outcomes in schizophrenia or the potential adverse effects of antipsychotic medication. This complicates the use of standard cost-effectiveness analysis to set priorities for health resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we measured utility weights for a set of health states derived from Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) scores, and a set of health states that included the presence of common adverse effects of medication, thus creating utility mapping function for clinical data. METHODS: We presented a convenience sample of members of a large commercial Internet survey panel with digital video materials portraying eight different patterns of schizophrenia with varying levels of positive, negative and cognitive symptoms, and five common adverse effects of antipsychotic medications. We then elicited their standard gamble (SG) and visual analog scale (VAS) ratings using iMPACT3 computer program, with an automated error repair feature, deliberately over-sampling minority ethnic groups in the panel. We censored subjects with uncorrected errors in ratings and estimated utilities for each state by re-weighting responses to match United States population demographics. SUBJECTS: 620 well-educated, ethnically diverse volunteers (54% Caucasian), who spanned a broad range of age groups and geographical regions of the US participated in this study. RESULTS: Because of evidence of bias in ratings, 175 (29%) subjects with internal inconsistencies in ratings were censored from estimates of mean population utilities. In the remaining 441 subjects, SG utilities, re-weighted to match US population demographic profiles, ranged from 0.88 for mild schizophrenia to 0.47 extremely severe schizophrenia. Variability in the types of symptoms exhibited (positive, negative or cognitive) was less important to participants than the overall severity of each state. Modest reductions in symptoms (for example, from severe to moderate or moderate to mild) were associated with relatively large changes in utility (0.12-0.19). Adverse effects decreased utilities for states by amounts ranging from 0.09 (pseudo-parkinsonism) to 0.05 (obesity). CONCLUSIONS: The public views schizophrenia is a very disabling syndrome and treatments that reduce symptoms produce important gains in utility, even if they do not induce a complete remission. Adverse effects significantly reduce utilities for states; therefore, cost-effectiveness analyses for this disorder should take adverse effects of treatment into consideration.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with schizophrenia have abnormalities in the P300 and P50 waves and to quantify the magnitude of any differences from controls. METHOD: We conducted a systematic search for articles published between January 1994 and August 2003 that reported P50 or P300 measures in schizophrenic patients and controls. Metaregression analyses were performed using a random effects model. The pooled standardised effect size (PSES) was calculated as the difference between the means of the two groups divided by the common standard deviation. RESULTS: We identified 46 studies suitable for analysis of P300 measures, including 1443 patients and 1251 controls. There were 20 P50 studies including 421 patients and 401 controls. The PSES for the P300 amplitude was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.65 to 1.05; p<0.001), and for the P300 latency was -0.57 (95% CI: -0.75 to -0.38; p<0.001). The PSES of the P50 ratio was -1.56 (95% CI: -2.05 to -1.06; p<0.001). There were no significant differences between patients and controls in P50 latency. Across-study variations in filters, task difficulty, antipsychotic medication and duration of illness did not influence the PSES significantly. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirms the existence of ERP deficits in schizophrenia. The magnitude of these deficits is similar to the most robust findings reported in neuroimaging and neuropsychology in schizophrenia.