Chouinard G, Albright P S
Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1997 Aug;17(4):298-307. doi: 10.1097/00004714-199708000-00010.
The current study uses utility analysis to assess economic and quality-of-life benefits of risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia. A retrospective analysis was performed on Positive and Negative Syndrome Symptoms (PANSS) data obtained from the published Canadian multicenter risperidone trial (part of the North American trial). Cluster analysis applied to endpoint PANSS scores, including all patients (N = 135), identified three clusters representing 130 patients with mild, moderate, and severe symptomatology. A narrative health state profile was written for each cluster, and 100 psychiatric nurses from Washington, DC, were asked to assign preference ratings to each one using linear analog and standard gamble (SG) methods. Mean utility values (confidence interval 95%) obtained from the SG ratings for the three health state profiles were 0.61 +/- 0.069 (mild); 0.36 +/- 0.073 (moderate); and 0.29 +/- 0.071 (severe). The mild health state (including the majority of risperidone 6 mg-treated patients) was rated by nurses to have a 0.25 +/- 0.0501 greater utility than the moderate health state (composed of the majority of haloperidol-treated patients). The results of these utility evaluations (SG) by the nurses were related to the clinical outcome for three of the six drug treatment groups (N = 65) by multiplying the percentage of patients in each of the three clusters, both at baseline and end-point, who were receiving risperidone 6 mg/day, haloperidol, or placebo, by the utility value for the health state assigned to that cluster. The gain in utility for risperidone-treated patients was 2.6 times higher (0.125) compared with haloperidol-treated patients (0.049), and 7 times higher compared with placebo (-0.021). After multiplying the gain in utility of each treatment by the remaining expected life span for men and women, it was found that risperidone-treated patients obtained more than twice as many quality-adjusted years as haloperidol patients. The incremental drug treatment cost divided by the incremental benefit of risperidone versus haloperidol was found to yield a favorable, generally accepted cost-utility ratio.
本研究采用效用分析来评估利培酮对慢性精神分裂症患者的经济和生活质量效益。对从已发表的加拿大多中心利培酮试验(北美试验的一部分)中获得的阳性和阴性综合征症状(PANSS)数据进行了回顾性分析。将聚类分析应用于终点PANSS评分,纳入所有患者(N = 135),识别出三个聚类,分别代表130例症状轻微、中度和重度的患者。为每个聚类撰写了一份叙述性健康状态概况,并要求来自华盛顿特区的100名精神科护士使用线性模拟和标准博弈(SG)方法对每个概况进行偏好评分。从三个健康状态概况的SG评分中获得的平均效用值(95%置信区间)分别为:0.61±0.069(轻度);0.36±0.073(中度);0.29±0.071(重度)。护士们认为,轻度健康状态(包括大多数接受6毫克利培酮治疗的患者)的效用比中度健康状态(由大多数接受氟哌啶醇治疗的患者组成)高0.25±0.0501。护士们进行的这些效用评估(SG)结果与六个药物治疗组中三个组(N = 65)的临床结局相关,方法是将基线和终点时接受6毫克/天利培酮、氟哌啶醇或安慰剂治疗的三个聚类中每组患者的百分比乘以分配给该聚类的健康状态的效用值。与接受氟哌啶醇治疗的患者相比,接受利培酮治疗的患者的效用增益高2.6倍(0.125),与接受安慰剂治疗的患者相比高7倍(-0.021)。将每种治疗的效用增益乘以男性和女性的剩余预期寿命后发现,接受利培酮治疗的患者获得的质量调整生命年是接受氟哌啶醇治疗患者的两倍多。结果发现,利培酮相对于氟哌啶醇的增量药物治疗成本除以增量效益,得出了一个有利的、普遍接受的成本效益比。