4.6 Review

Comparative remission rates of schizophrenic patients using various remission criteria

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2008.06.008

关键词

antipsychotic drugs; remission; response; schizophrenia

资金

  1. American Psychiatric Association/Astra-Zeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: New standardized criteria for remission in schizophrenia were presented in 2005 which need to be examined in regard to their significance for clinical trials. Objectives and methods: Data of six antipsychotic drug trials (n=2463) were analyzed by evaluating the proportion of participants who meet the new remission criteria, their symptomatic components, other criteria for remission and simple response-measures (at least 50% Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) reduction and an at least 50% PANSS reduction or a CGI-severity score of mild or better). Results: A total of 23.3%/27.2% (last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF)/completer analysis (CO)) of the patients with positive symptoms at baseline met the severity criteria of remission at 4 weeks, 10.5%/20.3% (worst case/CO) met the severity and time criteria at 28 weeks (three studies) and 10.9%/32.4% (worst case/ CO) met the severity and time criteria at 52 weeks (one study). At 4 weeks 4.5%/5.5% (LOCF/CO) met the severity criteria when a more stringent severity threshold of very mild or better was applied. Absence of symptoms was attained only sporadically. The psychotic symptoms component was met by fewer patients than the negative component. The criteria were more stringent than at least 50% BPRS reduction and CGI-severity score not more than mild and - for the long-term results - than at least 50% PANSS reduction. In the short-term analysis, the criteria were less stringent than at least 50% PANSS reduction. Conclusions: The applicability of the severity component of the new criteria in clinical trials was confirmed. The time criterion remains difficult to evaluate. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据