CNS Drugs

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 649–659 | Cite as

The CATIE and CUtLASS Studies in Schizophrenia

Results and Implications for Clinicians
Leading Article


Numerous double-blind studies have compared second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs), with most finding better efficacy and tolerability for SGAs. However, these ‘efficacy trials’ were generally short term and included only highly selected patients. Mostly because of weight gain and other metabolic effects of the SGAs, as well as their high acquisition price, the debate on the (cost) effectiveness of the SGAs led to two pragmatic clinical trials with no sponsorship by industry. Both trials had broad inclusion criteria and long follow-up, and tried to mimic clinical routine: CATIE (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness) and CUtLASS (Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic drugs in Schizophrenia Study).

1493 patients participated in CATIE, an 18-month, double-blind trial comparing the SGAs olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone and ziprasidone with the FGA perphenazine. If efficacy or tolerability was insufficient, patients were re-randomized to a medication other than the one they previously received. Improvement of psychopathology and of quality of life was only moderate. Overall, 74% of patients discontinued study medication before 18 months, and the median time to discontinuation was 4.6 months. Aside from olanzapine (time to discontinuation 9.2 months), the other SGAs did not differ from each other or from perphenazine. Except for adverse effects as a reason for discontinuation, differences between the SGAs and the FGA were minimal. In CUtLASS, a 12-month open-label trial, 277 patients were randomized to receive an FGA or a SGA. Again, efficacy was rather similar between the two groups, with only limited improvement of psychopathology and quality of life. The authors of both trials concluded that SGAs do not markedly differ from FGAs regarding compliance, quality of life and effectiveness.

The methodological problems of both trials have been discussed extensively. Patients had psychotic symptoms that were moderate in severity and were at least partially treatment resistant. The marginal improvement observed indicated that this population might not be appropriate to detect differences between FGAs and SGAs. Specific issues of CATIE include the exclusion of patients with tardive dyskinesia in the perphenazine arm and the high discontinuation rate. In CUtLASS, the concept of including 13 different FGAs and four SGAs in the respective classes was problematic. It is of interest that the most widely prescribed drug was sulpiride — of the FGAs, this is probably the ‘most atypical’ drug. Aside from the finding that the advantages of the SGAs are not as strong as early trials and marketing suggested or promised, the trials do not provide much helpful information regarding everyday practice. For tardive dyskinesia, no conclusions at all can be drawn. Similarly, methodological problems inhibited the detection of the other major advantage of the SGAs, i.e. the improved subjective well-being/ quality of life while receiving these agents. It is well known that patients’ and doctors’ perspectives differ markedly, and the Quality of Life Scale (QLS), an expert-rated scale used in both trials, might not be sensitive enough to detect the subjective advantages reported by the majority of patients in other trials.

CATIE and CUtLASS suggest that SGAs do not live up to all the previous expectations. However, even if most of these advantages are debatable, the lower risk of tardive dyskinesia and the better subjective effects should be strong enough reasons to favour these drugs. There is no single antipsychotic that is best for every schizophrenia patient, as individual responses differ markedly. For successfully individualized treatment, a multitude of anti-psychotic options are needed.


  1. 1.
    Tandon R, Belmaker RH, Gattaz WF, et al. World Psychiatric Association Pharmacopsychiatry Section statement on comparative effectiveness of antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2008; 100: 20–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Naber D. Subjective effects of antipsychotic treatment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005; 111: 81–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karow A, Schindler D, Naber D. What would the patient choose? Subjective comparison of atypical and typical neuroleptics. Pharmacopsychiatry 2006; 39: 47–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia (second Compendium). Arlington (VA): APA, 2004: 249–440Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falkai P, Wobrock T, Lieberman J, et al. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) guidelines for biological treatment of schizophrenia. Part 1: acute treatment of schizophrenia. World J Biol Psychiatry 2005; 6: 132–91Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehman AF, Kreyenbuhl J, Buchanan RW, et al. The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2003. Schizophr Bull 2004; 30: 193–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Schizophrenia: core interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia in primary and secondary care. Clinical Guideline 1, National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. London: NICE, 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Clinical Practice Guidelines Team for the Treatment of Schizophrenia and Related Disorders. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2005; 39: 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis JM, Chen N, Glick ID. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of second-generation antipsychotics. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60: 553–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dolder CR, Lacro JP, Dunn LB, et al. Antipsychotic medication adherence: is there a difference between typical and atypical agents? Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159: 103–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leucht S, Wahlbeck K, Hamann J, et al. New generation antipsychotics versus low-potency conventional antipsychotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2003; 361: 1581–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leucht S, Barnes T, Kissling W, et al. Relapse prevention in schizophrenia with new-generation antipychotics: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 1209–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Woodward ND, Scot EP, Meltzer HY, et al. A meta-analysis of neuropsychological change to clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in schizophrenia. Int J Neuro-psychopharmacology 2005; 8: 457–72Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geddes J, Freemantle N, Harrison P. Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 1371–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1209–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones PB, Barnes TR, Davies L, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the effect on quality of life of second- vs first-generation antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia: Cost Utility of the Latest Antipsychotic Drugs in Schizophrenia Study (CUtLASS 1). Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63: 1079–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1987; 13: 261–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McEvoy JP, Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, et al. Effectiveness of clozapine versus olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia who did not respond to prior atypical antipsychotic treatment. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 600–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stroup TS, Lieberman JA, McEvoy JP, et al. Effectiveness of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia following discontinuation of a previous atypical antipsychotic. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 611–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stroup TS, Lieberman JA, McEvoy JP, et al. Effectiveness of olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone in patients with chronic schizophrenia after discontinuing perphenazine: a CATIE study. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164: 415–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keefe RS, Bilder RM, Davis SM, et al. Neurocognitive effects of antipsychotic medications in patients with chronic schizophrenia in the CATIE trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 633–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heinrichs DW, Hanlon TE, Carpenter WT. The Quality of Life Scale: an instrument for rating the schizophrenic deficit syndrome. Schizophr Bull 1984; 10: 398–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swartz MS, Perkins DO, Stroup TS, et al. Effects of antipsychotic medications on psychosocial functioning in patients with chronic schizophrenia: findings from the NIMH CATIE study. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164: 428–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenheck AR, Leslie DL, Sindelar J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics and perphenazine in a randomized trial of treatment for chronic schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 2080–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lewis SW, Barnes TRE, Davies L, et al. Randomized controlled trial of effect of prescription of clozapine versus other second-generation antipsychotic drugs in resistant schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2006; 32: 715–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davies LM, Lewis S, Jones PB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of first-v. second-generation antipsychotic drugs: results from a randomised controlled trial in schizophrenia responding poorly to previous therapy. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 14–22Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kind P. The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health related quality of life. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1996Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Addington D, Addington J, Schissel B. A depression rating scale for schizophrenics. Schizophr Res 1990; 3: 247–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hogan TP, Awad AG, Eastwood R. A self-report scale predictive of drug compliance in schizophrenics: reliability and discriminative validity. Psychol Med 1983; 13: 177–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Edwards JE, Moore RA. Statins in hypercholesterolaemia: a dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomised, double-blind trials. BMC Fam Pract 2003; 4: 18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005 Oct 8; 366(9493): 1267–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Casey DE. Implications of the CATIE trial on treatment: extrapyramidal symptoms. CNS Spectr 2006; 11Suppl. 7: 25–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glick ID. Understanding the results of CATIE in the context of the field. CNS Spectr 2006; 11Suppl. 7: 40–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meltzer HY, Bobo WV. Interpreting the efficacy findings in the CATIE study: what clinicians should know. CNS Spectr 2006; 11Suppl. 7: 14–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meyer JM. Strategies for the long-term treatment of schizophrenia: real-world lessons from the CATIE trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2007; 68Suppl. 1: 28–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Möller HJ. Do effectiveness (“real world”) studies on anti-psychotics tell us the real truth? Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2008; 258: 257–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nasrallah HA. The roles of efficacy, safety, and tolerability in antipsychotic effectiveness: practical implications of the CATIE schizophrenia trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2007; 68Suppl. 1: 5–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weiden PJ. Discontinuing and switching antipsychotic medications: understanding the CATIE schizophrenia trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2007; 68Suppl. 1: 12–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McEvoy JP, Hogarty GE, Steingard S. Optimal dose of neuroleptic in acute schizophrenia: a controlled study of the neuroleptic threshold and higher haloperidol dose. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991; 48: 739–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Remington G, Kapur S, Zipursky RB. Pharmacotherapy of first-episode schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry Suppl 1998; 172: 66–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lambert M, Schimmelmann BG, Naber D, et al. Prediction of remission as a combination of symptomatic and functional remission and adequate subjective well-being in 2,960 patients with schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67(11): 1690–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kahn RS, Fleischhacker WW, Boter H, et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in first-episode schizophrenia and schizophreniform disorder: an open randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2008; 371: 1085–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    National Institute of Mental Health. 12-CGI: Clinical Global Impressions. In: Guy W, Bonato RR, editors. Manual for the ECDEU assessment battery. 2nd rev. ed. Chevy Chase (MD): NIHM, 1970: 12–1–6Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL, et al. The global assessment scale: a procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976; 33(6): 766–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Voruganti L, Cortese L, Oyewumi L, et al. Comparative evaluation of conventional and novel antipsychotic drugs with reference to their subjective tolerability, side-effect profile and impact on quality of life. Schizophr Res 2000; 43: 135–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Naber D, Moritz S, Lambert M, et al. Improvement of schizophrenic patients’ subjective well-being under atypical antipsychotic drugs. Schizophr Res 2001; 50: 79–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wehmeier PM, Kluge M, Schacht A, et al. Correlation of physician and patient rated quality of life during antipsychotic treatment in outpatients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2007; 91: 178–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    de Haan L, van Nimwegen L, van Amelsvoort T, et al. Improvement of subjective well-being and enduring symptomatic remission: a 5-year follow-up of first episode schizophrenia. Pharmacopsychiatry 2008; 41: 125–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rabinowitz J, Lichtenberg P, Kaplan Z, et al. Rehospita-lization rates of chronically ill schizophrenic patients discharged on a regimen of risperidone, olanzapine, or conventional antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 266–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schooler NR, Keith SJ, Severe JB, et al. Relapse and rehospitalisation during maintenance treatment of schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997; 54: 453–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zimbroff DL, Kane JM, Tamminga CA, et al. Controlled dose-response study of sertindole and haloperidol in the treatment of schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 782–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Correll CU, Leucht S, Kane JM. Lower risk for tardive dyskinesia associated with second-generation antipsychotics: a systematic review of 1-year studies. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 414–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Oosthuizen PP, Emsley RA, Maritz JS, et al. Incidence of tardive dyskinesia in first-episode psychosis patients treated with low-dose haloperidol. J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64(9): 1075–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosenheck RA. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reduced tardive dyskinesia with second-generation antipsychotics. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 238–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lewis S, Lieberman J. CATIE and CUtLASS: can we handle the truth? Br J Psychiatry 2008; 192: 161–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Centre for Psychosocial MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations