This story covers a Pfizer-sponsored study that compared Chantix (varenicline) to placebo in a group of smokers who were willing to gradually reduce their cigarette consumption — with the goal being smoking cessation. The headline is somewhat misleading on that point, and the story never completely clarifies that the participants were willing to start cutting down on cigarettes with an eye toward quitting entirely — they just didn’t want to go “cold turkey.” The story has several strong points, including its discussion of costs. We wished for more information on the potential side effects of varenicline and a more complete listing of alternative smoking cessation therapies.
Smoking is a major health problem in the United States. The CDC reports that approximately one in five deaths in the United States is tied to smoking-related health effects. Smoking is linked to a significant increase in health risks related to heart disease, cancer, and stroke. These health problems come with a high economic cost. The CDC estimates that smoking is responsible for “at least $133 billion for direct medical care of adults and more than $156 billion in lost productivity” in the U.S. Anything that can help smokers kick the habit has the potential to significantly benefit both public health and the economy.
The story makes clear that Chantix costs approximately $250 per month. The story also notes that some insurance companies would not cover the cost of smoking cessation drugs if an individual has not set a quit date. However, it’s not clear how many insurance companies will pay for smoking cessation drugs at all, or how many would pay for the drugs without a quit date.
There are two ways to think about benefits here: the benefit of quitting smoking and the benefit of using the smoking cessation drug. The story addresses both, but not equally well. First, the story tells readers that using the drug made it more likely that a smoker could successfully wean their cigarette consumption to zero within six months. And it provides statistics to back that up: “almost a third of the patients who got the drug quit within six months of starting the pills, compared with 6 percent who took the placebo.” Second, the story notes that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. While that’s useful information, the story would have been even better if it had addressed how and whether quitting smoking reduces health risks. For example, how long does someone have to be smoke-free before they see health benefits from not smoking?
We’d also note that the headline for this story is somewhat misleading. It says that the drug is effective for smokers “even before [they] are ready to quit.” That’s not as precise as it could have been. The subjects were indeed willing to quit, they just didn’t want to go “cold turkey.” The story compounds this problem when it quotes the author of the Pfizer-sponsored study who says, “It’s a paradigm shift because instead of only giving the medication to patients who have set a quit date, you are potentially giving it to every smoker.” But again, we’re not really talking about giving the drug to “every smoker” — just those who want to quit soon, but aren’t willing to go cold turkey.
The story specifically focuses on the use of varenicline, which goes by the trade name Chantix, but does not mention any of the possible adverse health effects associated with the drug. These possible side effects include changes in mood, suicidal thoughts, and cardiovascular problems — all of which are worth mentioning.
The story does a good job of explaining the relevant study, giving information on the size of the study, the study design, and the outcomes. The story also links directly to the journal article describing the study — which is always a plus. As noted above, the story could have been clearer about the study participants’ level of motivation.
The story does not exaggerate the health effects of smoking, although one could argue that it engages in mild “treatment mongering” of smoking cessation via the headline and a very enthusiastic quote that stretch the potential benefits of the drug.
The story does clearly state the relevant study was funded by Pfizer — the drug company that makes Chantix. That’s good. However, the story quotes only three sources. Two of them are authors of the relevant study. The third is David Abrams, who heads the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies. A quick internet search finds that Abrams has also done smoking cessation research with funding from Pfizer. The story would have benefited from input from an expert with no ties to Pfizer’s smoking cessation research.
We give the story credit for noting that the “rates of quitting for smokers in this study who received the treatment and did not want to quit right away were about the same as those in previous studies of patients who wanted to quit abruptly.” That’s good context. However, the story does not mention that the competing drug bupropion (sold as Zyban and Wellbutrin) has also been shown to offer some benefit in smokers who prefer to gradually reduce cigarette consumption over abrupt discontinuation. That’s an important omission.
The story makes clear that Chantix is already on the market.
The story notes that gradually cutting down on smoking, with the help of patches and gum, is an established way to change habits. However, it suggests that the current study “is the first that appears to show the same for pills,” which is not entirely accurate. As noted above, the competing drug bupropion has been studied in this context and shown to offer potential benefits. Since this is essentially the same problem that we noted above under “Alternatives,” however, we won’t penalize the story again for this omission.
The story includes quotes from sources that are not included in JAMA’s news release on the journal article.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.