Sunday, June 8, 2008

Experts Analyze Real Meaning of CATIE Study Findings

Despite the finding that SGAs are on average only marginally more efficacious than an FGA, perphenazine, most experts emphasize that what is true for "the average" patient may be not be best for the individual patient.

Science without the industry spin. That's the idea behind a series of nine papers appearing as a special section in the May issue of the APA journal Psychiatric Services looking at the results of the landmark Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention effectiveness (CATIE).

Prior to the appearance of the first CATIE study results in the New England Journal of Medicine (September 22, 2005), the superiority of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) over first-generation antipsychotics (FGA) was widely considered a given. Though the trial pitted a proxy FGA, perphenizine, against five SGAs, the primary question for many was which SGA was most efficacious.

So when results showed that, with the exception of clozapine, SGAs had only marginal superiority over perphenazine, the response from quarters with vested interests was not tepid; the pharmaceutical industry was loudest in attacking CATIE on methodological grounds.


No comments: