Skip to main content

Table 6 Trends on clinical outcomes, HRQoL and attitude toward treatment

From: Compliance, persistence, costs and quality of life in young patients treated with antipsychotic drugs: results from the COMETA study

  DAI total score Mean (SD) PANSS total score Mean (SD) GAF Mean (SD) CGI-S Mean (SD) EQ-VAS Mean (SD) EQ-utility Mean (SD) SF-36 PCS Mean (SD) SF-36 MCS Mean (SD)
  Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve Non naïve Naïve
Enrolment visit 43.9 (5.0) 41.0 (5.8) 85.5 (27.2) 98.2 (26.1) 54.6 (13.9) 49.9 (13.0) 4.2 (1.1) 4.6 (0.9) 63.7 (18.0) 63.3 (18.4) 0.71 (0.3) 0.68 (0.3) 47.8 (9.2) 48.3 (9.6) 39.5 (9.6) 37.1 (10.9)
Follow-up Examinatio2 43.9 41.7 79.8 81.1 57.1 58.6 4.1 3.9 66.2 67.8 0.74 0.76 48.2 48.7 40.6 39.8
(5.0) (4.8) (27.4) (25.7) (13.7) (12.6) (1.1) (1.2) (16.8) (14.6) (0.3) (0.2) (9.5) (9.0) (9.3) (9.5)
Follow-up examination3 44.2 42.1 75.3 76.1 59.4 62.4 3.9 3.7 68.0 72.2 0.75 0.80 49.1 51.9 41.5 42.0
(4.8) (5.1) (27.0) (24.5) (14.3) (12.0) (1.2) (1.1) (16.6) (14.4) (0.3) (0.2) (9.3) (8.1) (8.9) (8.0)
Follow-up examination4 44.2 42.6 71.4 66.9 61.4 67.6 3.8 3.4 70.5 75.5 0.79 0.81 49.7 53.5 41.9 43.0
(4.8) (5.2) (25.8) (21.1) (14.2) (11.5) (1.2) (1.1) (16.6) (14.7) (0.2) (0.2) (8.9) (6.6) (8.9) (10.0)
Time effect* F(2.7,1254) = 2.7 P = 0.053 F(2.3,1752) = 156.9 P < 0.0001 F(2.4,1752) = 132.6 P < 0.0001 F(2.5,1752) = 68.9 P < 0.0001 F(2.7,1581) = 25.9 P < 0.0001 F(2.8,1569) = 10.9 P < 0.0001 F(2.8,1434) = 14.1 P < 0.0001 F(2.8,1434) = 17.1 P < 0.0001
Time effect between subgroups* F(2.7,1254) = 1.1 P = 0.360 F(2.3,1752) = 22.7 P < 0.0001 F(2.4,1752) = 25.9 P < 0.0001 F(2.5,1752) = 14.3 P < 0.0001 F(2.7,1581) = 2.3 P = 0.080 F(2.7,1569) = 1.6 P = 0.192 F(2.8,1434) = 3.5 P = 0.017 F(2.8,1434) = 3.0 P = 0.033
  1. *Time effect refers to the differences estimated between mean observations at any pair of examinations, during the observational period, on the full sample.
  2. § Time effect estimated comparing two subgroups: non naïve versus naïve patients.