Guscott R, Taylor L
Mood Disorders Program, Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, Ontario, Canada.
Br J Psychiatry. 1994 Jun;164(6):741-6. doi: 10.1192/bjp.164.6.741.
The efficacy of lithium prophylaxis for recurrent mood disorders is well established. Despite concern that the later efficacy studies have shown poorer results, these studies (after 1980) are equally confirmatory of lithium's efficacy. However, questions have been raised with regards to the effectiveness of lithium prophylaxis under 'ordinary' clinical conditions. Part of the confusion stems from the failure to distinguish clearly efficacy (the potential of a treatment) from effectiveness (the results obtained under clinical conditions). Studies of effectiveness or naturalistic studies show poorer results than efficacy studies in all areas of medicine. The major reason for this discrepancy with lithium prophylaxis is poor compliance. Estimations of the efficiency (cost benefits) of lithium prophylaxis are flawed by the failure to consider such issues. It is proposed that specialised lithium or mood disorders clinics have the potential to narrow the gap between efficacy and effectiveness--efficiency.
锂盐预防复发性情绪障碍的疗效已得到充分证实。尽管有人担心后来的疗效研究显示效果较差,但这些(1980年以后的)研究同样证实了锂盐的疗效。然而,关于锂盐在“普通”临床条件下预防的有效性,人们提出了一些问题。部分困惑源于未能清楚地区分疗效(一种治疗方法的潜力)和有效性(在临床条件下获得的结果)。有效性研究或自然主义研究在医学的所有领域都显示出比疗效研究更差的结果。锂盐预防出现这种差异的主要原因是依从性差。由于没有考虑这些问题,对锂盐预防效率(成本效益)的估计存在缺陷。有人提出,专门的锂盐或情绪障碍诊所有可能缩小疗效与有效性——效率之间的差距。