PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Alexander L Miller

Publications and source records attributed to Alexander L Miller.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Catching up on health outcomes: the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a statistic measuring the impact of algorithm-driven disease management programs on outcomes for patients with chronic mental illness that allowed for treatment-as-usual controls to "catch up" to early gains of treated patients. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Statistical power was estimated from simulated samples representing effect sizes that grew, remained constant, or declined following an initial improvement. Estimates were based on the Texas Medication Algorithm Project on adult patients (age > or = 18) with bipolar disorder (n = 267) who received care between 1998 and 2000 at 1 of 11 clinics across Texas. STUDY DESIGN: Study patients were assessed at baseline and three-month follow-up for a minimum of one year. Program tracks were assigned by clinic. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Hierarchical linear modeling was modified to account for declining-effects. Outcomes were based on 30-item Inventory for Depression Symptomatology-Clinician Version. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Declining-effect analyses had significantly greater power detecting program differences than traditional growth models in constant and declining-effects cases. Bipolar patients with severe depressive symptoms in an algorithm-driven, disease management program reported fewer symptoms after three months, with treatment-as-usual controls "catching up" within one year. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to psychometric properties, data collection design, and power, investigators should consider how outcomes unfold over time when selecting an appropriate statistic to evaluate service interventions. Declining-effect analyses may be applicable to a wide range of treatment and intervention trials.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Texas Medication Algorithm Project, phase 3 (TMAP-3): rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: Medication treatment algorithms may improve clinical outcomes, uniformity of treatment, quality of care, and efficiency. However, such benefits have never been evaluated for patients with severe, persistent mental illnesses. This study compared clinical and economic outcomes of an algorithm-driven disease management program (ALGO) with treatment-as-usual (TAU) for adults with DSM-IV schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD) treated in public mental health outpatient clinics in Texas. DISCUSSION: The disorder-specific intervention ALGO included a consensually derived and feasibility-tested medication algorithm, a patient/family educational program, ongoing physician training and consultation, a uniform medical documentation system with routine assessment of symptoms and side effects at each clinic visit to guide ALGO implementation, and prompting by on-site clinical coordinators. A total of 19 clinics from 7 local authorities were matched by authority and urban status, such that 4 clinics each offered ALGO for only 1 disorder (SCZ, BD, or MDD). The remaining 7 TAU clinics offered no ALGO and thus served as controls (TAUnonALGO). To determine if ALGO for one disorder impacted care for another disorder within the same clinic ("culture effect"), additional TAU subjects were selected from 4 of the ALGO clinics offering ALGO for another disorder (TAUinALGO). Patient entry occurred over 13 months, beginning March 1998 and concluding with the final active patient visit in April 2000. Research outcomes assessed at baseline and periodically for at least 1 year included (1) symptoms, (2) functioning, (3) cognitive functioning (for SCZ), (4) medication side effects, (5) patient satisfaction, (6) physician satisfaction, (7) quality of life, (8) frequency of contacts with criminal justice and state welfare system, (9) mental health and medical service utilization and cost, and (10) alcohol and substance abuse and supplemental substance use information. Analyses were based on hierarchical linear models designed to test for initial changes and growth in differences between ALGO and TAU patients over time in this matched clinic design.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Texas Medication Algorithm Project, phase 3 (TMAP-3): clinical results for patients with a history of mania.

BACKGROUND: The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) assessed the clinical and economic impact of algorithm-driven treatment (ALGO) as compared with treatment-as-usual (TAU) in patients served in public mental health centers. This report presents clinical outcomes in patients with a history of mania (BD), including bipolar I and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, during 12 months of treatment beginning March 1998 and ending with the final active patient visit in April 2000. METHOD: Patients were diagnosed with bipolar I disorder or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, according to DSM-IV criteria. ALGO was comprised of a medication algorithm and manual to guide treatment decisions. Physicians and clinical coordinators received training and expert consultation throughout the project. ALGO also provided a disorder-specific patient and family education package. TAU clinics had no exposure to the medication algorithms. Quarterly outcome evaluations were obtained by independent raters. Hierarchical linear modeling, based on a declining effects model, was used to assess clinical outcome of ALGO versus TAU. RESULTS: ALGO and TAU patients showed significant initial decreases in symptoms (p =.03 and p <.001, respectively) measured by the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS-24) at the 3-month assessment interval, with significantly greater effects for the ALGO group. Limited catch-up by TAU was observed over the remaining 3 quarters. Differences were also observed in measures of mania and psychosis but not in depression, side-effect burden, or functioning. CONCLUSION: For patients with a history of mania, relative to TAU, the ALGO intervention package was associated with greater initial and sustained improvement on the primary clinical outcome measure, the BPRS-24, and the secondary outcome measure, the Clinician-Administered Rating Scale for Mania (CARS-M). Further research is planned to clarify which elements of the ALGO package contributed to this between-group difference.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

The effectiveness of quetiapine versus conventional antipsychotics in improving cognitive and functional outcomes in standard treatment settings.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of quetiapine versus conventional antipsychotics in improving cognitive and functional outcomes. METHOD: Forty stable outpatients with DSM-IV schizophrenia treated in public outpatient clinics were randomly assigned to continue taking conventional antipsychotic medications or switch to quetiapine for 6 months, beginning September 1998 and ending July 2000. Neurocognitive and functional measures were obtained at study entry, 3 months, and 6 months by raters blinded to treatment. Group differences were examined using repeated-measures analyses of covariance for mixed models. RESULTS: The mean (SD) dose of conventional antipsychotics in chlorpromazine equivalents was 348.00 (348.28) mg/day; the mean (SD) dose of quetiapine was 319.25 (142.55) mg/day. A cognitive function summary score improved in the quetiapine group relative to the group treated with conventional antipsychotics over the 6-month period (F = 5.80, df = 1,28.9; p <.023). Patients taking quetiapine did better with respect to both verbal fluency (initiation) and verbal memory. There were also statistically significant group differences with respect to quality of life favoring the quetiapine group (F = 4.87, df = 1,29; p <.04). Differences were not found with respect to adaptive functioning. CONCLUSION: Quetiapine improved cognition relative to conventional agents. After 6 months, groups differed by more than 1 standard deviation when baseline cognitive functioning was taken into account. No group differences were found with respect to improvements in community functioning. Improvements in adaptive functioning may lag behind improvements in cognition. Psychosocial programming may be necessary to translate gains in cognition into improvements in adaptive functioning.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Does cognitive function improve with quetiapine in comparison to haloperidol?

Recent evidence suggests that schizophrenia patients taking atypical antipsychotic medications may perform better on some tests of cognitive function than those treated with older antipsychotics. The current study compared the effects of quetiapine and haloperidol on measures of executive function, memory and attention. Subjects were 58 stable outpatients with schizophrenia (DSM III-R) who received a battery of cognitive tests as part of a randomized, double-blind, multi-site clinical efficacy study conducted by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Cognitive assessments were conducted prior to randomization when patients were receiving < or =30 mg haloperidol or equivalent (mean: 9.2mg/day haloperidol equivalents), and again after 24 weeks of fixed-dose treatment with either quetiapine 600 or 300 mg/day or haloperidol 12 mg/day. Analyses of covariance with planned comparisons were used to compare scores on cognitive measures at the end of 24 weeks by treatment group with baseline cognitive function scores used as covariates. Patients receiving quetiapine 600 mg/day improved to a greater extent than patients receiving haloperidol on overall cognitive function (p<0.02). Specific differences were found for executive function (Verbal Fluency Test, p<0.04), attention (Stroop Color Word Test, p<.03) and verbal memory (Paragraph Recall Test, p<0.02). Treatment group differences were not solely due to benztropine use, medication side effects, or changes in symptomatology. Treatment with quetiapine at higher doses (600 mg/day) relative to haloperidol appears to have a positive impact on important domains of cognitive performance that have been found to predict role function and community outcomes in patients with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic Agents↗
PubMed2002

Itemized clinician ratings versus global ratings of symptom severity in patients with schizophrenia.

This study compares ratings obtained with an itemized clinician-rated symptom severity measure--the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS24)--with a Physician Global Rating Scale (PhGRS) and a Patient Global Rating Scale (PtGRS) in assessing treatment outcomes in patients with schizophrenia (SCZ). A total of 91 patients (31 inpatients and 60 outpatients) with SCZ were enrolled in a feasibility study of the use of medication algorithms in the treatment of SCZ. Clinicians completed the BPRS24 and the PhGRS; patients completed the PtGRS at each visit. The analyses reported here were conducted using the original BPRS18 and four items from the BPRS18 that rate the positive symptoms of psychosis (the Positive Symptom Rating Scale or PSRS), comparing anchored with global rating scales and with one another. The PtGRS had the lowest effect size (0.8) and was negatively correlated with the other ratings in inpatients. The PhGRS was significantly correlated (0.46) with the BPRS18, but the same person completed both ratings. The effect size of the PhGRS (0.6) was generally lower than with the BPRS18 (1.4) in differentiating responders from non-responders. On average, the PSRS had a slightly lower effect size than the longer itemized BPRS18, but the results support its use as a quantitative rating in circumstances where it is not feasible to routinely use a lengthier scale.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Combination antipsychotics: pros, cons, and questions.

In prescription surveys, use of combination antipsychotics is common and is increasing, despite little supporting evidence. This article highlights potential problems with using combination antipsychotics, discusses paths to their maintenance use, and reviews the efficacy evidence. Paths to maintenance antipsychotic combinations include (1) failure or patient refusal of all reasonable monotherapies, (2) indefinite continuation of combinations initially intended to be brief, (3) trials of combinations in preference to reasonable monotherapy trials, and (4) addition of a second antipsychotic to counteract a problem (safety, tolerability, or adherence) arising during successful monotherapy. Virtually all of the evidence on combination antipsychotics is on augmentation of clozapine, with only one randomized controlled trial. Research on combination antipsychotics is sorely needed. Designing clinical trials is made difficult by the very large numbers of possible combinations and doses. It may be feasible to analyze existing data bases to identify combinations that appear particularly promising to investigate.

Antipsychotic Agents↗
PubMed2002

The Mount Sinai conference on the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia.

This report summarizes the recommendations from a consensus meeting that focused on specific questions regarding the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia. The issues were selected because there was evidence that experts had recently disagreed about the evidence supporting a particular practice or when there were substantial variations in a clinical practice indicating that there was disagreement among clinicians. The group of experts was able to reach a consensus regarding the evidence base pertaining to the following issues: First generation (FGAs) and second generation (SGAs) antipsychotics as first line agents; the duration of antipsychotic trials; the effectiveness of clozapine and other agents for treatment refractory schizophrenia; risk of tardive dyskinesia on FGAs and SGAs; differences among antipsychotics for different dimensions of psychopathology; and side effect monitoring for various antipsychotics.

Antipsychotic Agents↗