Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1120-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The clinical symptoms of schizophrenia are associated with serious social, quality of life and functioning alterations. Typically, data on health utilities are not available in clinical studies in schizophrenia. This makes the economic evaluation of schizophrenia treatments challenging. The purpose of this article was to provide a mapping function to predict unobserved utility values in patients with schizophrenia from the available clinical and socio-demographic information.
The analysis was performed using data from EuroSC, a 2-year, multi-centre, cohort study conducted in France (N = 288), Germany (N = 618), and the UK (N = 302), totalling 1208 patients. Utility was calculated based on the EQ-5D questionnaire. The relationships between the utility values and the patients’ socio-demographic and clinical characteristics (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale—PANSS, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia—CDSS, Global Assessment of Functioning—GAF, extra-pyramidal symptoms measured by Barnes Akathisia Scale—BAS, age, sex, country, antipsychotic type) were modelled using a random and a fixed individual effects panel linear model.
The analysis demonstrated the prediction ability of the used parameters for estimating utility measures in patients with schizophrenia. Although there are small variations between countries, the same variables appear to be the key predictors. From a clinical perspective, age, gender, psychopathology, and depression were the most important predictors associated with the EQ-5D.
This paper proposed a reliable, robust and easy-to-apply mapping method to estimate EQ-5D utilities based on demographic and clinical measures in schizophrenia.
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)11136_2015_1120_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 18 kb)11136_2015_1120_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 20 kb)11136_2015_1120_MOESM3_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 17 kb)11136_2015_1120_MOESM4_ESM.docx
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 46 kb)11136_2015_1120_MOESM5_ESM.docx
Assemblee Nationale et Senat. Data les and individual liberties (amended by the act of 6 August 2004 relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data). Journal ociel de la Republique Francaise 2004; Act No. 78-17 of 6 January 1978 on Data Processing.
Bell, M., Milstein, R., Beam-Goulet, J., et al. (1992). The positive and negative syndrome scale and the brief psychiatric rating scale. Reliability, comparability, and predictive validity. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 180(11), 723–728. CrossRef
Beresniak, A., Russell, A. S., Haraoui, B., et al. (2007). Advantages and limitations of utility assessment methods in rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(11), 2193–2200. PubMed
Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hofer, A., Baumgartner, S., Edlinger, M., et al. (2005). Patient outcomes in schizophrenia I: Correlates with sociodemographic variables, psychopathology, and side effects. European Psychiatry: The Journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 20(5–6), 386–394. CrossRef
Kay, S. R., Opler, L. A., & Lindenmayer J. P. (1989) The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS): Rationale and standardisation. British Journal of Psychiatry—Supplementum (7), 59–67.
Lenert, L. A., Rupnow, M. F., & Elnitsky, C. (2005). Application of a disease-specific mapping function to estimate utility gains with effective treatment of schizophrenia. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 57. CrossRef
Lenert, L. A., Sturley, A. P., Rapaport, M. H., et al. (2004). Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores.[Erratum appears in Schizophr Res. 2005 Dec 1;80(1):135–6]. Schizophrenia Research, 71(1), 155–165. CrossRefPubMed
McCrone, P., Patel, A., Knapp, M., et al. (2009). A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. The Journal of Mental Health Policy & Economics, 12(1), 27–31.
McFadden, D. (1973). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Z. Griliches & M. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
NICE (2008). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Technical report, National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London.
Reine, G., Simeoni, M. C., Auquier, P., et al. (2005). Assessing health-related quality of life in patients suffering from schizophrenia: A comparison of instruments. European Psychiatry: the Journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists, 20(7), 510–519. CrossRef
Siani, C., de Peretti, C., Castelli, C., et al. (2011). Uncertainty around the incremental cost utility ratio accounting for mapping prediction: Application to hepatitis C.
Smith, T. E., Hull, J. W., Goodman, M., et al. (1999). The relative influences of symptoms, insight, and neurocognition on social adjustment in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 187(2), 102–108. CrossRef
World Medical Association. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Seoul: General Assembly.
- Predictive models to estimate utility from clinical questionnaires in schizophrenia: findings from EuroSC
Christian de Peretti
- Springer International Publishing