 |
 |
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