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

Emma Beard, Sarah E Jackson, Robert M Anthenelli, Neal L Benowitz, Lisa St Aubin, Thomas McRae, David Lawrence, Cristina Russ, Alok Krishen, A Eden Evins, Robert West, Emma Beard, Sarah E Jackson, Robert M Anthenelli, Neal L Benowitz, Lisa St Aubin, Thomas McRae, David Lawrence, Cristina Russ, Alok Krishen, A Eden Evins, Robert West

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 factor = 0.02-0.23). In the psychiatric cohort versus placebo, the data were suggestive, but not conclusive of no increase in NPSAEs with varenicline (Bayes factor = 0.52) and bupropion (Bayes factor = 0.71). Here, the robustness regions ruled out a ≥7% and ≥8% risk increase with varenicline and bupropion, respectively.

Conclusions: Secondary analysis of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study trial using Bayes factors provides moderate to strong evidence that use of varenicline, bupropion or nicotine patches for smoking cessation does not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events relative to use of placebo in smokers without a history of psychiatric disorder. For smokers with a history of psychiatric disorder the evidence also points to no increased risk but with less confidence.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01456936.

Keywords: Bayes factor; EAGLES; bupropion; neuropsychiatric adverse event; nicotine patch; smoking cessation; varenicline.

© 2021 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.

References

    1. Cahill K., Stevens S., Perera R., Lancaster T. Pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation: an overview and network meta‐analysis, Cochrane database. Syst Rev 2013. CD009329.
    1. Institute for Safe Medication Practices . QuarterWatch. Monitoring FDA MedWatch Reports: September 24, 2014 — Data from 2013 Quarters 2 & 3; 2014.
    1. Gibbons R. D., Mann J. J. Varenicline, smoking cessation, and neuropsychiatric adverse events. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170: 1460–1467.
    1. Thomas K. H., Martin R. M., Knipe D. W., Higgins J. P., Gunnell D. Risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with varenicline: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ 2015; 350: h1109.
    1. Anthenelli R. M., Benowitz N. L., West R., St Aubin L., McRae T., Lawrence D., et al. Neuropsychiatric safety and efficacy of varenicline, bupropion, and nicotine patch in smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (EAGLES): a double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. The Lancet 2016; 387: 2507–2520.
    1. Schervish M. J. P values: what they are and what they are not. Am Stat 1996; 50: 203–206.
    1. Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press; 1998.
    1. Beard E., Dienes Z., Muirhead C., West R. Using Bayes factors for testing hypotheses about intervention effectiveness in addictions research. Addiction 2016; 111: 2230–2247.
    1. Kass R. E., Raftery A. E. Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90: 773–795.
    1. Spiegelhalter D., Rice K. Bayesian statistics. Scholarpedia 2009; 4: 5230.
    1. First M. B., France A., Pincus H. A. DSM‐IV‐TR Guidebook: The Essential Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Washington. DC, USA: American Psychiatric Press Inc.; 2004.
    1. Anthenelli R. M., Morris C., Ramey T. S., Dubrava S. J., Tsilkos K., Russ C., et al. Effects of varenicline on smoking cessation in adults with stably treated current or past major depression: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2013; 159: 390–400.
    1. Posner K., Brown G. K., Stanley B., Brent D. A., Yershova K. V., Oquendo M. A., et al. The Columbia–suicide severity rating scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. Am J Psychiatry 2011; 168: 1266–1277.
    1. Berger J. O. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis New York. Springer Science & Business Media: NY, USA; 2013.
    1. Dienes Z. How do I know what my theory predicts? Preprint at , 2019.
    1. Dienes Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non‐significant results. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 781.
    1. Morey R. D., Rouder J. N., Jamil T., Morey M. R. D. Package ‘bayesfactor’, URLh i (accessed 1006 15) 2015.
    1. Gunel E., Dickey J. Bayes factors for independence in contingency tables. Biometrika 1974; 61: 545–557.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa