Search

The recent introduction of several antipsychotic medications has raised expectations for better pharmacological management of schizophrenia. Although conventional and new neuroleptics (Risperidone, Olanzapine, Seroquel and soon to be released Ziprasidone) are generally comparable in terms of efficacy; the new antipsychotic medications possess a better side-effects profile and are overall, much better tolerated. The reintroduction of Clozapine as an effective antipsychotic for treatment refractoriness has also improved management for a segment of the schizophrenic population who failed to respond adequately to other antipsychotic medications. Such increased benefits from new antipsychotic medications come with a higher acquisition cost that has somewhat strained the historically low psychiatric budgets. The question then was whether the expected benefits of the new antipsychotics can offset the high cost of these medications in the long-term. In that context, quality of life assessment has provided a tool for the comparative analysis of new and conventional antipsychotic medications, particularly regarding their impact on functional status and satisfaction. In a recently concluded study, we demonstrated that the new antipsychotic medications are subjectively much better tolerated and have a more favourable impact on quality of life compared with conventional neuroleptics. The ultimate question is whether such favourable benefits can translate in the future into better compliance with medications and improved long-term outcomes.

In 1997, we published a review in PharmacoEconomics about quality of life (QOL) measurement in patients with schizophrenia. The objective of this article is to provide an update, as well as to revisit the development of the construct of QOL and its measurement as applied to schizophrenia. Since our previous article, there has been significant growth in the number of publications about QOL in schizophrenia. Unfortunately, alongside this significant increase in research interest, a number of concerns have also risen about the limitations and lack of impact the concept of QOL has on clinical care and health-policy decision making. A number of concerns previously outlined (such as lack of consensus on a uniform definition of QOL) continue to be an issue. However, we believe that a uniform definition may not be possible, and instead, it may be preferable to have several definitions, which may enrich the concept and broaden its usefulness. Some of the scales we reviewed in 1997 continue to be in use, while others are now rarely or never used. New scales with better psychometrics have been introduced, but most are without theoretical or conceptual foundation. On the other hand, the field of scaling in general has been changing over the past few years and is moving towards a new approach for scale development, based on item response theory, item banks and computer adaptive testing. Unfortunately, this has not extended to QOL in schizophrenia. There continues to be a dearth of theoretical and conceptual models for QOL in schizophrenia, which seems to create the perception that the construct lacks a good theoretical and scientific foundation. One of the major gaps identified in this review is the recognized lack of impact of QOL measurements on clinical management or policy decision making. The majority of publications continue to focus on measurement rather than what to do with the data. The lack of strategies to integrate QOL data in clinical care, as well as the failure to contribute to policy decisions, particularly in cost analysis or resource allocations, has created the perception that the construct of QOL in schizophrenia is not that useful. It is evident that, for QOL in schizophrenia to regain its promise, researchers must take the ultimate next step beyond measurement: to develop credible strategies for integrating QOL data in clinical practice. Additionally, more focused research is needed to demonstrate the role of QOL, not only as an outcome in itself but also as a contributor to other outcomes, such as adherence to medications, more satisfaction, less resource utilization and so on. Since self-appraisal of QOL does not happen in a vacuum but relates to the total human experience in all its biological, psychosocial and environmental aspects, particular attention must also be focused on important neurobiological dimensions such as affect and cognition. Both are significantly affected by the illness itself and its treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schizophrenia is a long-term disabling illness that affects approximately 1% of the population. Its course is generally chronic with acute psychotic exacerbations that may require frequent hospitalisations. The clinical picture includes a range of symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, agitation, suspiciousness, hostility, conceptual disorganisation, blunted affect, emotional and social withdrawal, lack of spontaneity, poverty of speech and a wide range of neurocognitive deficits. Over the past 50 years, antipsychotic medications have emerged as the cornerstone of management in concert with other important interventions, such as psychosocial and economic support and rehabilitation efforts. However, the unrivalled role of conventional antipsychotic medications has been continuously challenged by the wide range of adverse effects of these medications and their lack of usefulness in the treatment of neurocognitive deficits as well as deficit and negative symptoms. In addition, the lack of subjective tolerability of these agents and their negative impact on quality of life have complicated management for a large number of patients. Over the last 15 years, several new atypical antipsychotic medications have been introduced, including amisulpride, remoxipride, risperidone, sertindole, olanzapine, zotepine, quetiapine, ziprasidone and aripiprazole. In general, the new antipsychotics have shown themselves to be at least comparable in efficacy to conventional antipsychotics but with superior subjective tolerability and a more favourable adverse effect profile. The majority of quality of life studies involving new antipsychotic agents have evaluated the benefits of risperidone, olanzapine and clozapine; only a few studies have examined the effects of other new antipsychotics. While most of these studies have methodological and design limitations, the weight of evidence from them nevertheless points to a trend towards a more positive impact on quality of life with atypical agents. A number of recommendations can be made. First, more independent well designed and controlled studies are urgently needed to evaluate the effects of antipsychotic therapy on quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. New comparative studies should explore not only the differences between new and old antipsychotics but also identify any potential differences between individual new agents. The role of cost-effectiveness studies such as cost utility approaches in schizophrenia needs to be revisited, notwithstanding the fact that these types of studies have been reported to be feasible in schizophrenia. Finally, quality-of-life-based pharmacoeconomic studies of antipsychotic agents should not concentrate solely on cost reduction or containment, as it is likely that in order to maximise the benefits of new antipsychotic medications, greater expenditure on rehabilitation programmes and other support services will be necessary in the short-term at least. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality of life has emerged as the ideal of modern medicine viewed from a biopsychosocial perspective. The concept has been increasingly used as an important attribute in patient care and clinical studies as well as the basis in many health economic evaluations. Although the concept has been extensively applied in a number of other medical fields such as oncology, cardiovascular, and arthritis, it is only recently that quality of life has received serious attention in the study of severe psychiatric disorders. For the concept to be meaningfully applied in the study of these disorders, several basic and methodological issues have to be adequately resolved. Five such issues are identified: definition of quality of life, the subjective/objective dichotomy, significant determinants of quality of life, how quality of life is measured, and the role of quality of life in clinical management and health economics. Unless these issues are adequately clarified and resolved, the recent heightened interest in the concept of quality of life may fade away, and that would be a missed opportunity in the mental health field. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]