Suppr超能文献

氨磺必利增效氯氮平治疗精神分裂症无效患者(AMICUS):一项双盲、安慰剂对照、随机临床试验,评估临床疗效和成本效益。

Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

机构信息

Centre for Mental Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

West London Mental Health NHS Trust, London, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2017 Sep;21(49):1-56. doi: 10.3310/hta21490.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

When treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

DESIGN

The study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks.

SETTINGS

The study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants were people aged 18-65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Interventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of 'responders', using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term.

LIMITATIONS

The trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk-benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride-clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 21, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

摘要

背景

当治疗抵抗性精神分裂症对氯氮平的试验反应不足时,临床医生通常会添加第二种抗精神病药,尽管缺乏有力的证据证明这种做法合理。

目的

本研究的主要目的是确定氯氮平药物联合第二种抗精神病药氨磺必利治疗治疗抵抗性精神分裂症的临床疗效和成本效益。

设计

该研究是一项多中心、双盲、个体随机、安慰剂对照试验,随访时间为 12 周。

设置

该研究在 NHS 多学科精神病团队中进行。

参与者

符合条件的参与者为年龄在 18-65 岁之间、对氯氮平单药治疗持续存在症状严重程度和社会功能受损无反应的治疗抵抗性精神分裂症患者。

干预措施

干预措施包括氨磺必利在 12 周内对氯氮平进行增效治疗或安慰剂。参与者在前 4 周内接受 400mg 氨磺必利或两种匹配的安慰剂胶囊,之后可以选择将氨磺必利的剂量滴定至 800mg 或 4 种匹配的安慰剂胶囊,持续 8 周。

主要结果测量

主要结果测量是使用阳性和阴性综合征量表总分降低 20%的标准反应阈值来确定“应答者”的比例。

结果

共有 68 名参与者被随机分配。与接受安慰剂的参与者相比,接受氨磺必利的参与者在 12 周随访时更有可能成为应答者(优势比 1.17,95%置信区间 0.40 至 3.42),并且负面症状也有更大的改善,尽管在 6 周随访时这两种发现都不存在,而且都没有统计学意义。氨磺必利与更大的副作用负担相关,包括心脏副作用。经济分析表明,氨磺必利增效在短期内具有潜在的成本效益(净节省 329 至 2011 英镑;在质量调整生命年(QALYs)方面没有差异),并且在长期内可能也具有成本效益。

局限性

该试验招募人数不足,因此,对活性药物组和安慰剂组之间进行统计学差异检测的统计分析能力有限。经济分析表明,由于研究持续时间短,参与者数量相对较少,存在高度不确定性。

结论

对于氯氮平单药治疗反应不足的精神分裂症患者,氨磺必利增效氯氮平的风险效益值得在更大规模的研究中进一步探讨。对于氨磺必利-氯氮平联合治疗中确定的副作用负担的大小和程度,部分可能反映了本研究中对副作用的全面评估。未来此类治疗策略的临床试验设计应考虑到在通常认为足够的急性精神病发作抗精神病治疗研究中,在 4 至 6 周的随访期内可能不会出现临床反应。经济评估表明需要更大、更长时间的研究来解决由于氨磺必利和对 QALYs 的影响而导致的节省程度的不确定性。对于氨磺必利-氯氮平联合治疗中确定的副作用负担的大小和性质,对氯氮平增效治疗与第二种抗精神病药的临床和研究环境中的安全性和耐受性监测的性质和频率具有重要意义。

试验注册

EudraCT 编号 2010-018963-40 和当前对照试验 ISRCTN68824876。

资金来源

该项目由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)健康技术评估计划资助,将在 ;第 21 卷,第 49 期全文发表。请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站以获取进一步的项目信息。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

8
Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia.难治性精神分裂症
Focus (Am Psychiatr Publ). 2020 Oct;18(4):364-367. doi: 10.1176/appi.focus.20200025. Epub 2020 Nov 5.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验