This US News & World Report story discusses the possibility that some drugs used mainly to control attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) may be useful in helping people quit smoking.
The story focuses on a very small pilot study where researchers claim an ADHD drug, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, reduced the number of cigarettes a person smoked, although it had no effect on stopping their smoking habit. The story doesn’t mention either the cost of the drug nor any harms that might come from its use. It also doesn’t provide enough information about the study itself for readers to adequately evaluate its results. Nor does it disclose that the study was funded by a pharmaceutical company and that some members of the research team receive support from pharmaceutical firms.
Smoking is a serious addiction that causes serious health consequences in those with and without ADHD, so efforts to promote abstinence and decreased use are appropriate. But when it comes to the ADHD drug Vyvanse helping smokers quit, this article is much ado about nothing.
There is no mention of the cost of the drug mentioned in the study, lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, in this story. A quick web search provided costs for a 30-day supply ranging from $285 to $337.
Nor was there any mention of whether health insurance would cover the cost of this drug for helping curb smoking, especially since this is an “off-label” usage.
The story states that, “our findings suggest that among adult regular smokers with ADHD who are interested in quitting, LDX does not increase the probability of smoking cessation more than does placebo, but is associated with a significant overall reduction in the amount of cigarettes smoked and is effective for reducing ADHD symptoms.”
However, there are no numbers offered to lend context to that statement. We don’t know how many cigarettes participants smoked on average, nor do we know how many fewer they smoked while on the drug. Basically, there no numerical data provided in this story.
The story doesn’t mention anything about harms, potential or reported, to those taking lisdexamfetamine dimesylate. While some known side effects may be considered minor, this is an amphetamine-based compound and appropriate cautions should be mentioned.
While the story does explain that participants were given either the drug or a placebo, nothing else was offered to help evaluate the study design, and thus put its findings into perspective. The study itself was very small, involving less than two dozen participants in either the placebo or experimental group. The study offered several limitations which went unmentioned by the news story:
“First, our sample size was quite small and this study can thus only be considered a pilot trial. Most of our findings did not even approach significance, however, suggesting that statistical power (i.e., sample size) was not a major factor in our findings.”
“Second, we did not collect systematic follow-up data on our sample after the end of treatment.” … “It would have been useful to assess the impact of LDX on smoking-related outcomes over a longer duration of time.”
While the story doesn’t really commit disease mongering, it does play off the understanding that a large portion of the smoking population wants to quit and are therefore easily susceptible to any information suggesting an easier remedy to stopping smoking, which this story does. The headline makes it sounds like it was about using ADHD drugs as smoking cessation treatment, for example.
While the story includes a comment from a physician not affiliated with the study mentioned, it fails to point out that some members of the research team receive support from pharmaceutical firms, or that the study itself was underwritten by a drug company.
We’ll give the story a just barely satisfactory here since it includes the information that study participants also were using a transdermal patch aimed at helping them quit smoking. It also mentions two other available drugs which may be useful in helping curb smoking.
The drugs mentioned in this story are all currently available.
The story appears to be a feature story vs pegged to a new study being published. So we’ll give this an N/A.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like