As in all things it depends on who you talk to.  I am taking Comtan and I would have to say I am experiencing significant results.  My "on" time is longer and more pronounced since Comtan.  I really didn't want to have to increase my sinemet any more.  I am already taking 12-25/100 per day.

You can't codmemn something just  because it's not working for you.  Comtan must be doing some good for many PWP's or it wouldn't be on the market.  I personally believe it is not being prescribed correctly by some neuros.  My recommendation is try it for yourself and make up your own mind.

Greg
47/35/35
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Tompkins" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: Comtan


> I believe we need to think critically about reports about Comtan and
> the importance of its effects, and to consider alternatives.
> 
> I took a look at the label information approved by the FDA for
> Comtan.  It is at
> 
> http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/1999/20796LBL.PDF
> 
> Three studies are cited.  In so far as I am able to understand the
> results, they indicate that patients on Sinemet who have about 10
> hours of "on" time per day without Comtan can on the average
> expect to have a total "on" time increase per day of slightly more
> than one hour by taking Comtan.
> 
> Two news items regarding Comtan posted at the NPF web site
> report on two of  these studies. They are at
> 
> http://www.parkinson.org/texthtms/tcom.htm and
> http://www.parkinson.org/texthtms/tcom2.htm.
> 
> According to the news items, the studies of Comtan demonstrate a
> "significant increase in daily 'on' time".  The quantity of the
> increase is not given.
> 
> The word "significant" can be misleading.  When used in a
> statistical context, it denotes a difference that is greater than could
> be accounted for by mere chance.  Statistical significance has a
> precise mathematical definition.
> 
> Outside the statistical context, "significant" means "important", a
> meaning which is much less precise and quite different.
> 
> It is easy to slip from one meaning to the other, and the NPF news
> items facililtate this.  They summarize the study results in
> apparently popular language while retaining the statistical
> terminology.  This will change "significant" to "important" in the
> mind of the reader.  I would guess that this was not intentional.
> 
> By the way, if the increase is "significant," wouldn't it be worth
> saying what it is?
> 
> One more hour per day may be statistically significant but is it all
> that important?  Can't the same results can be achieved by a slight
> increase in the frequency of Sinemet doses and/or by tighter
> control of dose vs. meal schedules and limiting of dietary fat and
> protein?
> 
> These are questions that I think ought to be raised with one's
> doctor.
> 
> Phil Tompkins
> Amherst, Mass
> age 62/dx 1990
>