Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Second-generation antipsychotics: Reviewing the cost-effectiveness component of the CATIE trial

  • Robert Rosenheck(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Marvin Swartz
    ,
  • Joseph Patrick McEvoy
    ,
  • T. Scott Stroup
    ,
  • Sonia Davis
    ,
  • Richard S.E. Keefe
*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
 Peer-review

Open access

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well

Abstract

The cost-effectiveness component of the 18-month CATIE trial of schizophrenia ppharmacotherapy (n = 1460) showed that the first-generation antipsychotic pephenazine was US$300-600 per month less expensive than each of four second-generation antipsychotics, and no less effective across multiple measures. We consider whether or not each of eight potential methodological limitations could weaken this conclusion: follow-up rates, study duration, sample characteristics, the choice of outcome measures, exclusion of patients with tardive dyskinesia from assignment to perphenazine, choice of study drugs and doses, reliance on intention-to-treat analysis, and differences in prestudy treatment. We conclude that results of CATIE are robust to these limitations. Perphenazine seems to have been a more representative choice for first-generation antipsychotic comparison treatment than haloperidol.

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
 Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 103-111 (9 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (Volume 7, Issue 2)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 04/2007

Publication status

Published - 04/2007

ISSN

1473-7167

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 34247567935
  • PubMed: 20528436

Access to documents

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
FWCI
2.17
SciVal
Author count
8
SciVal
citations
23
SciVal
Paper percentile
76
Scopus
citations
24, opens in new tab
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.13
Fractional count
7
Fractional count
0.88
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Captures
49
Citation count
26

Funding Details

Robert Rosenheck reports having received research funding from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly and Co.; and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co. and Janssen Pharmaceutica Products. Jeffrey Lieberman reports having received research funding from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products and Pfizer Inc.; and consulting and educational fees from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co., Forest Pharmaceutical Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, Novartis, Pfizer Inc. and Solvay. T Scott Stroup reports having received research funding from Eli Lilly and Co.; and consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Joseph McEvoy reports having received research funding from Astra-Zeneca, Forest Research Institute, Eli Lilly and Co., Janssen Pharmaeutica and Pfizer Inc.; consulting or advisory board fees from Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and lecture fees from Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Marvin Swartz reports having received research funding from Eli Lilly and Co.; and consulting and educational fees from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co. and Pfizer Inc. Richard SE Keefe reports having received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Co. and Jans-sen Pharmaeutica; consulting fees or advisory board payments from Forest Labs, Eli Lilly and Co., Janssen Pharmaceutica, Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and lecture fees from Eli Lilly and Co. and Janssen Pharmaceutica. John Hsaio reports no financial disclosures.