Posted by katekite on July 31, 2002, at 12:26:47
In reply to Re: Lexapro rep pushes Lexapro, what a shock!, posted by pharmrep on July 31, 2002, at 10:34:47
Hi,
Thanks for offering to be a resource. I understand that you believe in the usefullness of Lexapro. I don't disbelieve that it may well be a way better drug than Celexa. I just feel I don't have enough information yet to make that judgement.
Could you give some details on actual clinical experience of the first 1300 people in the Lexapro trials versus the first 1300 people in the Celexa trials at an equivalent dose?
I guess what I object to when you said "better" is that you said that it was better because of a study that showed that people benefited clinically plus a separate study that showed that the two isomers competed. But the study that explains why people are doing so well clinically is likely in a dish or in rats -- it just doesn't seem like one thing proves the other. So you say, "better because" and I feel a sudden rush of skepticism.
Can you explain in more detail why you think it is better.?Once again, please don't think I disagree that it could be better. I've no personal problem with new drugs in general or with Celexa or Lexapro themselves, just wondering how you are so sure it is better?
Thanks,
Kate
poster:katekite
thread:110614
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020731/msgs/114629.html