Evidence Hub

Estimation of risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events from varenicline, bupropion and nicotine patch versus placebo: secondary analysis of results from the EAGLES trial using Bayes factors

Beard E, Jackson SE, Anthenelli RM, Benowitz NL, Aubin LS, McRae T, Lawrence D, Russ C et al.

Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2021

4,116 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims Analysed using classical frequentist hypothesis testing with alpha set to 0.05, the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES) did not find enough evidence to reject the hypothesis of no difference in neuropsychiatric adverse events (NPSAEs) attributable to varenicline, bupropion, or nicotine patch compared with placebo. This might be because the null hypothesis was true or because the data were insensitive. The present study aimed to test the hypothesis more directly using Bayes factors. Design EAGLES was a randomised, double‐blind, triple‐dummy, controlled trial. Setting Global (16 countries across five continents), between November 2011 and January 2015. Participants Participants were smokers with (n = 4116) and without (n = 4028) psychiatric disorders. Interventions Varenicline (1 mg twice daily), bupropion (150 mg twice daily), nicotine patch (21 mg once daily with taper) and matched placebos. Measurements The outcomes included: (i) a composite measure of moderate/severe NPSAEs; and (ii) a composite measure of severe NPSAEs. The relative evidence for there being no difference in NPSAEs versus data insensitivity for the medications was calculated in the full and sub‐samples using Bayes factors and corresponding robustness regions. Findings For all but two comparisons, Bayes factors were <1/3, indicating moderate to strong evidence for no difference in risk of NPSAEs between active medications and placebo (Bayes…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,116 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free