APPENDICES. A systematic review and economic model of the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

260 Appendix 12 Core symptoms Educational performance Quality of life Adverse events Dizziness: 0 (0%)/1 (2%)/0 (0%) Decreased appetite: 2 (4%)/17 (42%)/2 (12%); placebo > amphetamine, p < 0.05 Increased appetite: 7 (13%)/4 (10%)/2 (12%) Hallucinations, delusions: 0 (0%)/1 (2%)/0 (0%) (All comparisons NS except for decreased appetite) Conclusions Authors’ conclusions: Amphetamine was superior to placebo in improving behaviour Reviewer’s comments: No comments noted
Study Intervention Participants Outcomes Core symptoms Not reported Reference Gittelman-Klein et al., 1976 57 Co-existent problems Not reported Source AHRQ Report Educational performance Not reported Setting USA Psychological function Not reported Arm 1 MPH Fixed dose for first 4 weeks to a maximum dosage of 60 mg/day unless noticeable sideeffects occurred; MPH twice daily (a.m., lunch) and placebo once daily (night) Mean dosages (at 12 weeks) 1.66 mg/kg/day (0.83–3.08 mg/kg/day) (Individual administering medication not reported) Design Parallel trial Depression or anxiety Not reported Inclusion criteria 1. 6–12 years old 2. Attending school 3. Free of neurological disease, such as epilepsy, hemiparesis, cerebral palsy, microcephaly 4. Non-psychotic 5. WISC IQ of ≥ 80 and a sub-IQ of ≥ 85 6. A parent or responsible adult willing to come for weekly visits 7. Home telephone 8. Family fluent in English 9. No previous history of psychopharmacological treatment (more than a daily dose of 5 mg DEX or 10 mg MPH for a 2-month period). Quality of life Not reported Adverse events Side-effects standardised form: severity and consistency Arm 2 Thioridazine hydrochloride Fixed dose for first 4 weeks to a maximum dosage of 300 mg/day unless noticeable sideeffects occurred; placebo twice daily (a.m., lunch) and thioridazine hydrochloride once daily (night) Mean dosage 4.54 mg/kg/day (0.99–14.38 mg/kg/day) (Individual administering medication not reported) Duration Drug treatment periods: 12 weeks each; placebo treatment period: 4 weeks Additional outcomes Not reported Diagnostic criteria DSM-II CTRS, Home Hyperactivity Scale (parents), Test Behaviour Scale (psychologists, psychiatrists) were used for diagnosis Purpose To evaluate the relative efficacy of a stimulant and a phenothiazine in the treatment of hyperkinetic children © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2006. All rights reserved. Health Technology Assessment 2006; Vol. 10: No. 23 Number Total randomised = 166 (male = 140/155) Arm 1 = 41 Arm 2 = 41 Arm 3 = 42 Arm 4 = 42 Total withdrawals = 11 Arm 1 = 2 Arm 2 = 5 Arm 3 = 3 Arm 4 = 1 Reasons for withdrawals: Arm 1: 1/2 dropped out owing to poor family motivation; 1/2 dropped out owing to sleep difficulties Arm 2: 2/5 had extreme drowsiness, 1/5 had nosebleeds, 1/5 parents dissatisfied with lack of improvement, 1/5 did not follow prescription and stopped attending appointments Arm 3 MPH and thioridazine hydrochloride Fixed dose for first 4 weeks to a maximum dosage of 60 mg/day and 300 mg/day, respectively, unless noticeable side-effects occurred; dosages to be equal for each drug; MPH twice daily (a.m., lunch) and thioridazine hydrochloride once daily (night) Mean dosage 1.59 mg/kg/day MPH (25–60 mg/day) and 3.94 mg/kg/day thioridazine hydrochloride (25–300 mg/day) (Individual administering medication not reported) Arm 4 Placebo Three times daily (a.m., lunch, night) (Individual administering medication not reported) continued 261
Page 1 and 2:
Appendices A systematic review and
Page 3 and 4:
Clinical effectiveness information
Page 5 and 6:
Searches for systematic reviews in
Page 7 and 8:
19. methyl phenidate.mp. 20. methyl
Page 9 and 10:
43. attention deficit$.mp. 44. 42 o
Page 11 and 12:
MEDLINE in-process and other non-in
Page 13 and 14:
PsycINFO (1967-July 2004) Searched:
Page 15 and 16:
next aminopropane) or dynaphenyl or
Page 17 and 18:
or ritaline or riphenidate or rital
Page 19:
System for Information on Grey Lite
Page 22 and 23:
166 Appendix 2 S hyperkinetic S imp
Page 24 and 25:
168 Appendix 2 19. (eq5d or eq 5d o
Page 26 and 27:
170 Appendix 2 14. (person trade of
Page 28 and 29:
172 Appendix 3 Reference Reason for
Page 31:
Appendix 4 © Queen’s Printer and
Page 34 and 35:
178 Appendix 5 8. Was the statistic
Page 36 and 37:
180 Appendix 6 Cost-effectiveness R
Page 38 and 39:
182 Appendix 7 Appropriateness of m
Page 40 and 41:
184 Appendix 7 Sensitivity analysis
Page 42 and 43:
186 Appendix 7 Sensitivity analysis
Page 44 and 45:
188 Appendix 8 Probability cost-eff
Page 47 and 48:
Appendix 10 © Queen’s Printer an
Page 49 and 50:
Health state Responder to ATX, no s
Page 51 and 52:
Health state Responder to IR-MPH, R
Page 53 and 54:
Health state Responder to ER-MPH, R
Page 55:
#Baseline shift random effects mode
Page 58 and 59:
202 Appendix 12 Study Intervention
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
206 Appendix 12 Core symptoms Educa
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67: 210 Appendix 12 Core symptoms Educa
Page 72 and 73: 216 Appendix 12 Study Intervention
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222:
366 Appendix 13 Study characteristi
show all

APPENDICES. A systematic review and economic model of the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?