Search

Summary: Background: Antipsychotics are the gold standard treatment for schizophrenia, but many patients who receive treatment experience persistent symptoms. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of augmentation drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA statement, the PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, clinical trial and EUDRACT databases were searched from inception to May 15th, 2023. To ensure the robustness of the results, only double-blind randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias (measured by the Risk Of Bias v2 (ROB2) tool) were included. The studies were categorised according to the background regimen: participants were treated with risperidone, mixed antipsychotics or clozapine. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. PROSPERO register: CRD42023420964. Findings: A total of 44 trials (comprising 45 augmentation drugs and 3358 participants) were included in the analysis. One-third of the drugs (16 drugs) demonstrated significant efficacy vs. placebo for at least one outcome. The most notable effect sizes (ESs) were observed for the use of tropisetron (standard mean difference: −0.83 [95% interval confidence −1.12 to −0.55]), memantine (−0.50 [−0.66 to −0.32]) and minocycline (−0.56 [−0.72 to −0.39]) to treat negative symptoms among patients treated with risperidone (moderate-to-high ESs). Studies involving mixed antipsychotics yielded lower ESs (small-to-moderate). Sodium benzoate (−0.41 [−0.60 to −0.21]) and memantine (−0.23 [−0.36 to −0.11]) were found have significant effects on positive symptoms, while memantine demonstrated efficacy for negative symptoms (−0.32 [−0.45 to −0.19]) and general psychopathology (−0.32 [−0.44 to −0.20]). Studies focusing exclusively on patients treated with clozapine revealed that duloxetine produced the best results (negative symptoms: −1.12 [−1.35 to −0.91]). Sodium benzoate was the only augmentation drug that demonstrated efficacy in relieving persistent positive symptoms (−0.32 [−0.59 to −0.08]) among patients treated with clozapine. Treatment with clozapine in combination with antipsychotics yielded small-to-moderate ESs. Interpretation: The GRADE framework indicated that the quality of the evidence among the included studies was moderate, primarily due to the limited number of randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Important drugs did not appear in these results due to insufficient low-risk-of-bias data for these medications. These results highlight new pathways for treating schizophrenia that should be incorporated into future guidelines after further validation. Funding: No funding.

Objectives: Inclusion of patient preference (PP) data in decision making has been largely discussed in recent years. Healthcare decision makers—regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA)—are more and more conscious of the need for a patient-centered approach to decide on optimal allocation of scarce money, time, and technological resources. This literature review aims to examine the use of and recommendations for the integration of PP in decision making.Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed/Medline in May 2019 to identify publications on PP studies used to inform benefit–risk assessments (BRAs) and HTAs and patient-centered projects and guidelines related to the inclusion of PPs in health policy decision making. After title and abstract screening and full-text review, selected publications were analyzed to retrieve data related to the collection, use, and/or submission of PPs informing BRA or HTA as well as attempts and initiatives in recommendations for PPs integration in decision-making processes.Results: Forty-nine articles were included: 24 attempts and pilot project discussions and 25 PP elicitation studies. Quantitative approaches, particularly discrete choice experiments, were the most used (24 quantitative elicitation studies and 1 qualitative study). The objective of assessing PPs was to prioritize outcome-specific information, to value important treatment characteristics, to provide patient-focused benefit–risk trade-offs, and to appraise the patients' willingness to pay for new technologies. Moreover, attempts and pilot projects to integrate PPs in BRAs and HTAs were identified at the European level and across countries, but no clear recommendations have been issued yet. No less than seven public and/or private initiatives have been undertaken by governmental agencies and independent organizations to set guidance targeting improvement of patients' involvement in decision making.Conclusion: Despite the initiatives undertaken, the pace of progress remains slow. The use of PPs remains poorly implemented, and evidence of proper use of these data in decision making is lacking. Guidelines and recommendations formalizing the purpose of collecting PPs, what methodology should be adopted and how, and who should be responsible for generating these data throughout the decision-making processes are needed to improve and empower integration of PPs in BRA and HTA.

Objectives: While several authors have suggested using a multi-criteria approach for orphan drug assessment and proposed lists of determinants of orphan drug value, studies on social preferences regarding these determinants remain limited. The current study aimed to identify preferences of the French general population regarding attributes characterizing the value of orphan drugs in a discrete choice experiment.Methods: The list of attributes was formed based on a literature search and was refined through expert interviews, a focus group, and a pilot study. The final list included nine attributes: disease-associated disability, disease-associated mortality, number of patients, availability of alternative treatments, treatment impact on disease disability, treatment impact on mortality, treatment safety, uncertainty around therapeutic effect, and annual treatment cost per patient. Members of the General Public were presented with 12 choice sets containing two drug profiles described according to the attributes and an option to fund neither of these treatments. The questionnaire was disseminated online. A conditional logit model with random effects was used to estimate the weight of each attribute.Results: A total of 958 persons participated in the study (48.7% male, mean age: 47.5 years). All attributes except for disease-associated disability had a statistically significant influence on the choices made by participants. The attribute with the highest weight was treatment impact on mortality (p < 0.0001), followed by uncertainty around therapeutic effect (p < 0.0001). The direction of results was generally consistent with intuition: patients preferred a drug with a larger impact on mortality, a larger impact on disability, with mild or no adverse events, with less uncertainty. Although patients appeared to prefer drugs with a lower budget impact, the relationship between patient preferences and costs was more complex.Conclusions: Preferences of the general public between orphan drugs are mostly driven by the impact on mortality and the degree of certainty regarding the available evidence.