The 20-year-old Cochrane Collaboration is widely recognized
for compiling and analyzing thousands of clinical trials, providing health
professionals with useful information, in the form of authoritative analyses
and reports, for clinical practice. Regrettably,
the Cochrane’s reputation was tarnished last week when it issued a report on
smoking cessation medications (here).
The report conveys the inaccurate impression that
FDA-approved medicines are “effective” in helping smokers quit. Uncritical media like Time magazine (here) quickly parroted the message:
“Based on the findings, all the drugs were successful at
improving the odds for smokers who wanted to quit. Participants were 80% more likely to quit when
using a single NRT [nicotine replacement therapy] or taking bupropion
compared to those using a placebo.”
While technically accurate, that statement entirely obscures
the medicines’ actual impact and implies a ringing endorsement when none is
merited.
While Cochrane boasts that its research “covered 267
studies, involving 101,804 participants,” there is no information on how many
participants quit by using the placebo. This
is a serious omission, well below the standards of the institution’s past
reports.
In a summary written for laymen, the Cochrane notes: “NRT
and bupropion helped about 80% more people to quit than placebo; this means
that for every 10 people who quit with placebo about 18 could be expected to quit
with NRT or with bupropion. Varenicline
more than doubled the chances of quitting compared with placebo, so that for
every 10 who quit with placebo about 28 could be expected to quit with
varenicline.”
These numbers are not meaningful, because they are abstract
and without context. Mark Eisenberg and
colleagues from McGill University in 2008 published a meta-analysis of smoking
medicines in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (abstract here) that provides the necessary context, by reporting numbers of successes and
failures for placebo and for medicines.
In the Eisenberg analysis the quit rate for all 11,000
participants given a placebo was just over 10%.
This means that out of a hundred smokers using placebo, about 10
successfully quit. Quit rates were 17% using
nicotine gum, 19% for the patch, 21% for bupropion and 26% for varenicline.
Here’s the flip side:
90 out of 100 smokers failed to quit with placebo, 83% failed with
nicotine gum, 81% with the patch, 79% with bupropion, and 74% failed with
varenicline.
And that’s not the end of the story. Placebo and medicine quit rates in clinical
trials are typically grossly elevated compared to the real world. The reasons: (1) clinical trials carefully
screen participants, enrolling only highly motivated smokers who are likely to
complete the trial, and succeed; (2) trials provide intensive motivation and
follow-up, increasing success rates; (3) there is well documented evidence that
pharmaceutical company funding inflates quit rates for medicines (abstract here).
In the real world, quit rates are half of clinical trials, around
5%, according to the National Institutes of Health (here), meaning that 95% of smokers fail. It’s
likely that real-world failure rates are 91% for nicotine gum or patch, 90% for
bupropion and 87% for varenicline.
Smoking cessation medicines are effective for only for a
tiny minority of smokers. Suppressing
this fact deters smokers from learning about and adopting safer tobacco
alternatives. By further obscuring the
truth, the Cochrane collaborates, intentionally or not, with tobacco
prohibitionists who are undermining public health and condemning countless
smokers to untimely and entirely avoidable death. That is a real-world disaster.
3 comments:
A major flaw of all these controlled studies is that blinding the presence of the active substance is not possible.
Smokers recognize quicly if it is present or not. So the results are usually meaningless.
It makes you wonder why they are trying to pass off these false reports as truth.
I think Luc makes a valid point, that the results are usually meaningless. Also I think that these people are obviously trying to hide something, but why?
Post a Comment