|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jorenby et al. state that the odds ratios for the comparison between the nicotine patch and placebo were "similar to values reported in previous work" and cite the guidelines of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR); however, Table 16 of these guidelines lists odds ratios of 2.1 to 2.8 for the nicotine patch.3 In addition, meta-analyses of the use of the nicotine patch under conditions identical to those in the study by Jorenby et al. (minimal intervention or treatment as a part of a family practice) report odds ratios of 2.14 and 3.5.5
For some unknown reason, treatments known to be active often perform poorly when used as controls in studies of new treatments.6 Unfortunately, the results of neither a study of new and old treatments combined nor a comparison of old and new treatments can be unambiguously interpreted when the old treatment is not efficacious in the study.6
In summary, I am not questioning the efficacy of bupropion, but I do believe that we should be cautious in accepting the conclusions of Jorenby et al. with respect to the superiority of combined treatment and the superiority of bupropion over the nicotine patch until replicate studies are conducted in which the nicotine patch is found to be efficacious.
John R. Hughes, M.D.
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05401-1419
Editor's note: Dr. Hughes has received consulting fees and grants from many pharmaceutical firms, including Glaxo Wellcome, McNeil, Pharmacia & Upjohn, and SmithKline Beecham.
References
To the Editor: Dr. Hughes argues that our study does not constitute a good test of the relative efficacy of bupropion and the nicotine patch because the patch produced disappointing results. He argues, in essence, that any interpretation of our results should be deferred because the patch produced atypical effects. Analyses of both the point-prevalence rate and the rate of continuous abstinence indicated the superiority of bupropion. The correct odds ratio for the comparison of the nicotine patch with placebo among subjects with continuous abstinence was 1.8, not 1.1 as reported on page 691 of our paper. According to the AHCPR smoking-cessation guidelines, the size of this effect is typical of that reported in other nicotine-patch studies.1 Despite the fact that the patch had a fairly typical and significant beneficial effect on the rates of continuous abstinence, bupropion was associated with even better outcomes. The results with respect to point-prevalence outcomes paralleled this differential.
We agree with Dr. Hughes that replication of results is vital. However, we would support this principle just as strongly if the nicotine patch had had better outcomes in our study. Although it is highly tempting to interpret or weight studies according to whether treatments perform in an expected manner, surely this approach would bias science in undesirable ways. We prefer the strategy of accepting our results as they are recognizing that in the context of this study, bupropion resulted in higher long-term abstinence rates than did placebo or the nicotine patch.
Douglas E. Jorenby, Ph.D.
Michael C. Fiore, M.D., M.P.H.
Timothy B. Baker, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin Medical School
Madison, WI 53706
References
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article has been cited by other articles:
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |