4.4 Article

Antipsychotic effects on estimated 10-year coronary heart disease risk in the CATIE schizophrenia study

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
Volume 105, Issue 1-3, Pages 175-187

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2008.07.006

Keywords

Schizophrenia; Antipsychotic; Coronary heart disease risk; Blood pressure; Cholesterol

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [1MH900001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Persons with schizophrenia die earlier than the general population, in large part due to cardiovascular disease. The study objective was to examine effects of different antipsychotic treatments on estimates of 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk calculated by the Framingham Heart Study formula. Method: Change in 10-year risk for CHD was compared between treatment groups in 1125 patients followed for 18 months or until treatment discontinuation in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Schizophrenia Trial. Results: The covariate-adjusted mean change in 10-year CHD risk differed significantly between treatments. Olanzapine was associated with a 0.5% (SE 0.3) increase and quetiapine, a 0.3% (SE 0.3) increase; whereas risk decreased in patients treated with perphenazine, -0.5% (SE 0.3), risperidone, -0.6% (SE 0.3), and ziprasidone -0.6% (SE 0.4). The difference in 10-year CHD risk between olanzapine and risperidone was statistically significant (p=0.004). Differences in estimated 10-year CHD risk between drugs were most marked in the tertile of subjects with a baseline CHD risk of at least 10%. Among individual CHD risk factors used in the Framingham formula, only total and HDL cholesterol levels differed between treatments. Conclusions: These results indicate that the impact on 10-year CHD risk differs significantly between antipsychotic agents, with olanzapine producing the largest elevation in CHD risk of the agents studied in CATIE. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available