Cost-effectiveness was analyzed by Rosenheck et al. (p.
2080) for the medications administered in phase 1 of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE). Perphenazine, a first-generation antipsychotic with intermediate potency, was compared with four second-generation antipsychotics. Perphenazine was associated with a lower total cost of health care and was similar overall in terms of quality-adjusted life years, which were based on symptoms and side effects. The comparison was limited by the 18-month duration of the treatment trial, high dropout rates, and exclusion of patients with tardive dyskinesia at baseline. The results nevertheless encourage consideration of older intermediate-potency antipsychotics. Dr. Freedman comments on the importance of the study and its limitations in an editorial on p.
2029. The phase 1 data from the CATIE study were examined from another perspective by Essock et al. (p.
2090). They evaluated the extent to which continuing to take the antipsychotic prescribed before the study, versus switching to that medication, influenced the outcome of that drug treatment. For instance, 23% of the patients randomly assigned to olanzapine in phase 1 were already taking olanzapine at study entry, whereas the other patients in the olanzapine group were switched from other antipsychotics. Comparison of the "stayers" and "switchers" indicated that the rates of treatment discontinuation were lower for the "stayers. " This advantage was strongest for olanzapine, whereas patients who stayed with quetiapine did less well than those who were switched from quetiapine to olanzapine or risperidone. This distinction between "switchers" and "stayers" attenuates the overall CATIE phase 1 results but does not essentially alter them. Dr. Tamminga provides perspective in an editorial on p.
2032. Polsky et al. (p.
2047) identify the essential methodological features of cost-effectiveness analyses of randomized, controlled trials. Applying these standards to eight earlier cost-effectiveness evaluations of second-generation antipsychotics revealed substantial methodological problems, which undermine the findings of those assessments.