In people with schizophrenia whose medication is changed for clinical reasons, there is no disadvantage across 1 year in terms of quality of life, symptoms, or associated costs of care in using FGAs rather than nonclozapine SGAs. Neither inadequate power nor patterns of drug discontinuation accounted for the result.

There is good evidence that clozapine is more efficacious than first-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. It is less clear if clozapine is more effective than the other second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs. A noncommercially funded, pragmatic, open, multisite, randomized controlled trial was conducted in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS). Participants were 136 people aged 18-65 with DSM-IV schizophrenia and related disorders whose medication was being changed because of poor clinical response to 2 or more previous antipsychotic drugs. Participants were randomly allocated to clozapine or to one of the class of other SGA drugs (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride) as selected by the managing clinician. Outcomes were assessed blind to treatment allocation. One-year assessments were carried out in 87% of the sample. The intent to treat comparison showed no statistically significant advantage for commencing clozapine in Quality of Life score (3.63 points; CI: 0.46-7.71; p = .08) but did show an advantage in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score that was statistically significant (-4.93 points; CI: -8.82 to -1.05; p = .013) during follow-up. Clozapine showed a trend toward having fewer total extrapyramidal side effects. At 12 weeks participants who were receiving clozapine reported that their mental health was significantly better compared with those receiving other SGA drugs. In conclusion, in people with schizophrenia with poor treatment response to 2 or more antipsychotic drugs, there is an advantage to commencing clozapine rather than other SGA drugs in terms of symptom improvement over 1 year.

Objective: To report on a new modelling approach developed for the assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity (ACE-Obesity) project and the likely population health benefit and strength of evidence for 13 potential obesity prevention interventions in children and adolescents in Australia. Methods: We used the best available evidence, including evidence from non-traditional epidemiological study designs, to determine the health benefits as body mass index (BMI) units saved and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) saved. We developed new methods to model the impact of behaviours on BMI post-intervention where this was not measured and the impacts on DALYs over the child's lifetime (on the assumption that changes in BMI were maintained into adulthood). A working group of stakeholders provided input into decisions on the selection of interventions, the assumptions for modelling and the strength of the evidence. Results: The likely health benefit varied considerably, as did the strength of the evidence from which that health benefit was calculated. The greatest health benefit is likely to be achieved by the 'Reduction of TV advertising of high fat and/or high sugar foods and drinks to children', 'Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding' and the 'multi-faceted school-based programme with an active physical education component' interventions. Conclusions: The use of consistent methods and common health outcome measures enables valid comparison of the potential impact of interventions, but comparisons must take into account the strength of the evidence used. Other considerations, including cost-effectiveness and acceptability to stakeholders, will be presented in future ACE-Obesity papers. Information gaps identified include the need for new and more effective initiatives for the prevention of overweight and obesity and for better evaluations of public health interventions.

BackgroundThe aim of the ACE-Obesity study was to determine the economic credentials of interventions which aim to prevent unhealthy weight gain in children and adolescents. We have reported elsewhere on the modelled effectiveness of 13 obesity prevention interventions in children. In this paper, we report on the cost results and associated methods together with the innovative approach to priority setting that underpins the ACE-Obesity study.MethodsThe Assessing Cost Effectiveness (ACE) approach combines technical rigour with 'due process' to facilitate evidence-based policy analysis. Technical rigour was achieved through use of standardised evaluation methods, a research team that assembles best available evidence and extensive uncertainty analysis. Cost estimates were based on pathway analysis, with resource usage estimated for the interventions and their 'current practice' comparator, as well as associated cost offsets. Due process was achieved through involvement of stakeholders, consensus decisions informed by briefing papers and 2nd stage filter analysis that captures broader factors that influence policy judgements in addition to cost-effectiveness results. The 2nd stage filters agreed by stakeholders were 'equity', 'strength of the evidence', 'feasibility of implementation', 'acceptability to stakeholders', 'sustainability' and 'potential for side-effects'.ResultsThe intervention costs varied considerably, both in absolute terms (from cost saving [6 interventions] to in excess of AUD50m per annum) and when expressed as a 'cost per child' estimate (from

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. NHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a very reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 30-40 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £300 per volume. Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can only be purchased for the current or forthcoming volume. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. Declared competing interests of authors: SW Lewis received support for travel to meetings and honoraria for consultancies from AstraZeneca, Lilly, BristolMyersSquibb, Pfizer, Janssen, Wyeth, Lundbeck, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. L Davies received funding for preparing papers and attendance at meetings from Janssen, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Lundbeck, and project funding from Novartis. PB Jones received travel support to academic meetings from companies manufacturing drugs used in this study, and unrestricted use of honoraria and consultancy fees for some work for academic use in his department and elsewhere. TRE Barnes received travel support to academic meetings and honoraria for consultancy from companies manufacturing drugs used in this study, plus the award of a grant from Sanofi-Synthelabo for an investigator-initiated study. RM Murray received honoraria and advisory fees from pharmaceutical companies (paid into departmental research funds). R Kerwin received honoraria and advisory fees from pharmaceutical companies and received research grants for non-clinical research from Novartis. D Taylor received honoraria for a lecture and consultancy from manufacturers of atypical antipsy...