Halfway during the 20th century, the development of antipsychotic medications
revolutionised the care for patients with psychosis. Yet today, efficacy of antipsychotic
medications is still far from perfect. Positive symptoms may persist
despite antipsychotic treatment, the effects on cognitive and negative symptoms
are small, and side-effects are often burdensome (Leucht et al., 2009a). Therefore,
putting means and efforts into developing more efficacious medication,
if possible with fewer side-effects, is to be applauded. However, effect-sizes of
the second-generation antipsychotic medications on primary symptoms, in
comparison to placebo, currently lie around. (Leucht et al., 2009b). Note
that this effect-size is the result of a meta-analysis of controlled trials where
medication intake was strictly monitored and adherence was probably high.
However, in the average patient population, non-adherence is common in more
than half of the patients (Perkins, 2002), and it is associated with poor outcome
and high costs. In the UK for example, non-adherence to antipsychotic medication
predicted an excess annual cost of more than 5.000 pound of service use
per patient (Knapp et al., 2004), due to factors such as crisis interventions and
readmissions. It is therefore plausible, considering that no recent development
has improved the effects of antipsychotic medications substantially, that current
intervention and research efforts are most likely to successfully improve outcome
if they target the non-adherence problem. Medications, no matter how
effective, are not helpful when patients do not use them. Given the fact that
a mere 58% of the prescribed antipsychotic medications is actually taken by
patients (Cramer & Rosenheck, 1998), solving the problem of non-adherence
could theoretically almost double the efficacy of antipsychotic treatment in
everyday practice.http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20553/100908_Staring%2C%20Anton%20Bernard%20Pieter.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment