Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T06:47:47.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2965 – How to Assess and Study Treatment Adherence in Schizophrenia? The Influence of Clinical Trial Design on Adherence Outcome Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

C. Correll*
Affiliation:
The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Glen Oaks, NY, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The primary goals of maintenance treatment in schizophrenia are sustained symptomatic control, relapse prevention, and delaying functional and cognitive decline.1 Successful pharmacotherapy is dependent on several factors including efficacy, therapeutic alliance, availability of optimal dosages and formulations, treatment adherence, and a low side-effect burden. New long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of atypical antipsychotics have been developed to address suboptimal therapy outcomes by enhancing drug delivery, assuring efficacy of treatment, reducing side effects, and improving compliance.2 Evidence differentiating the effectiveness of oral vs. long-acting antipsychotics is difficult to obtain in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where adherence to both is optimized.

RCTs are designed to establish clinical efficacy in an “ideal” setting in which medication adherence is controlled and highly regulated.3 However, RCTs cannot by definition assess treatment effectiveness. Conversely, naturalistic studies that mimic clinical practice are more likely to uncover real-world effectiveness differences of different treatment options. Research has demonstrated major benefits of LAIs in naturalistic studies, including large, nationwide cohort studies and mirror-image studies where patients serve as their own controls. Results from these trials are likely to be underestimated in RCTs owing to stringent inclusion criteria, frequent clinic visits and direct provision of medications.4 Therefore, data from meta-analyses can be misleading if the trial design is not considered in the interpretation of the results.5 Furthermore, naturalistic studies can more accurately assess the consequences for patients with regards to relapse and rehospitalization rates. Therefore, clinicians have to be aware of the origin of data and its impact on the results before making treatment decisions.

The current presentation will critically review data from 3 meta-analyses comparing LAIs with oral antipsychotics, exploring how to interpret the data from different trial designs in the context of unmet patient needs, and how the results from differential designs may impact treatment outcomes.

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2013

References

References:

Falkai, P., et al.World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (wfsbp) Guidelines For Biological Treatment of Schizophrenia, Part 2: Long-term Treatment of Schizophrenia. World J Biol Psychiatry 2006; 7: 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, S. Advances in Psychotropic Formulations. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2006; 30: 9961008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, T., et al.Long-acting Injectable Vs Oral Antipsychotics For Relapse Prevention in Schizophrenia: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials. Schizophr Bull 2013 Jan 2 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
Tiihonen, J., et al.A Nationwide Cohort Study of Oral and Depot Antipsychotics After First Hospitalization For Schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168: 603609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, T., et al.P.3.c.033 Long-acting Injectable Vs. Oral Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia: a Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Mirror-image and Cohort Studies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 22Suppl 22012 S335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.