A comparison of olanzapine versus risperidone for the treatment of schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

Objective This meta-analysis was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine with risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia. Methods Data from randomised, double-blind studies were analysed according to short- (≤12 weeks) and longer-term (>12 weeks) treatment, and included all-doses analyses and a sensitivity analysis of clinically relevant doses. A range of efficacy and safety parameters was measured. Results Olanzapine produced statistically significant improvements in efficacy and safety parameters compared with risperidone over both the short and longer term. Anticholinergic use, study dropouts, changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores, and Quality-of-Life Scale changes, were often significantly in favour of olanzapine. Results from the sensitivity analyses of only clinically relevant doses further favoured olanzapine compared with the all-doses analyses. Conclusion Small changes in the presence or severity of psychotic symptoms and side-effects can affect a patient's prognosis and quality of life. With this in mind, the efficacy and safety advantages of olanzapine suggested by this study may convey clinical relevance to certain aspects of schizophrenia. However, further research - especially into longer-term efficacy and safety - is needed to confirm the differences between the available antipsychotics.

A decision-analytic economic evaluation of valaciclovir prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in renal transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of valaciclovir prophylaxis using clinically and economically important health outcomes including graft failure, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: A Markov model was developed using a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of valaciclovir prophylaxis, together with a published epidemiological study and national renal transplant registry data. The model's population was stratified into two risk groups by donor/recipient cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus at transplantation: donor-positive/recipient-negative (D+R-) and recipient-positive (R+) patients. The model estimated costs and health outcomes over a 30-yr period from the perspective of Australian health care providers. RESULTS: The total health care cost was $3619 lower for D+R- patients receiving valaciclovir prophylaxis compared with those not receiving prophylaxis. D+R- patients receiving valaciclovir gained an extra 0.33 yr of life and 0.27 QALYs. R+ patients receiving valaciclovir prophylaxis gained an extra 0.07 yr of life and 0.05 QALYs, with an incremental cost of $914. This equates to $17 127 per QALY gained, which is highly cost-effective compared with other drugs and health interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Valaciclovir for the prophylaxis of CMV disease in renal transplant recipients is a cost-effective intervention, significantly reducing the burden of CMV disease to patients and health care providers.

A comparison of techniques for eliciting patient preferences in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

PURPOSE: We compared the Health Utility Index (HUI), EuroQol (EQ-5D) and time trade-off methods to identify the most suitable technique for collecting preference data in a clinical trial of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 29 men with symptomatic BPH were interviewed by a single trained interviewer who collected demographic data and administered EQ-5D and time trade-off questionnaires. Participants self-administered the HUI and a symptom severity index, the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) questionnaire. Utility values for current patient health states obtained from the HUI, EQ-5D and time trade-off questionnaires were compared and their relationship with I-PSS data was examined using Spearman's correlation coefficients. Administration time and patient assessments of the relevance of the questions were also compared for the 3 methods. RESULTS: Although mean utility values for HUI, EQ-5D and 1-year time trade-off were similar, only utility values elicited using time trade-off with a 1-year time frame significantly correlated with symptom scores. The 1 and 10-year time trade-off derived values were reasonable predictors of the I-PSS with multiple correlation coefficient values of 0.379 and 0.265, respectively. All participants indicated that the HUI and EQ-5D were appropriate for assessing BPH, while approximately 10% considered time trade-off questions irrelevant. Average completion time for the HUI, time trade-off and EQ-5D questionnaires was 31, 25 and 10 minutes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Because only time trade-off resulted in utility values that significantly correlated with symptom scores, we recommend its use for estimating utility in clinical trials of BPH.