Global economic burden of schizophrenia: letter in response
Amanda L Neil,1 Vaughan J Carr2,3
1Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, 2Research Unit for Schizophrenia Epidemiology, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 3Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
In reference to the recent systematic review by Chong et al1 on cost-of-illness studies in schizophrenia, we seek to highlight the limited scope and apparent inconsistencies embedded within this review. The review utilizes the term schizophrenia alone as the identifying disorder-related variable within its search strategy. Schizophrenia is the prototypical and most prevalent among the psychotic disorders, and schizophrenia is certainly used as a generic term in reference to the “schizophrenia-related disorders”, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes F20–F29. The most well-known example of such use is in the Global Burden of Disease studies.2–4 However, the reliance on this term as being all-inclusive is diminishing, as reflected in the chapter heading change from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV to DSM-V, namely “Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders” to “Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders”. Further, the overarchingterm psychotic disorders are increasingly being used in the recognition of the substantial clinical, neuropsychological, neuroimaging, and genetic overlap between disorders within this group.
Huey Yi Chong,1 Siew Li Teoh,1 David Bin-Chia Wu,1 Chiun-Fang Chiou,2 Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk1,3–5
1School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia; 2Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies Asia Pacific, Singapore; 3Center of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research (CPOR), Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand; 4School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA; 5School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
We thank Dr Neil and Professor Carr for their comments regarding our published systematic review “Global economic burden of schizophrenia: a systematic review”.1 We would like to address and clarify issues raised in their letter.The authors made a good point related the absence of “psychotic disorders” in our review. Although the suggested term is increasingly recognized, it encompasses diverse disorders including schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, and schizotypal (personality) disorder, etc.2 Owing to the fact that our review mainly focused specifically on schizophrenia, we included studies that estimated economic burden among patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, therefore the inclusion of this broader term “psychotic disorders” defeats the purpose of our review.
View original paper by Chong et al
A further Letter the Editor has been received and published
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]