Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Varenicline: quantifying the risk

Brian S. Alper
CMAJ September 06, 2011 183 (12) 1405; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.111-2071
Brian S. Alper
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

The meta-analysis by Singh and colleagues tries to quantify the risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events with varenicline.1 Many representations of this risk have been disseminated, including a large increase (number needed to harm [NNH] 28) extrapolated from applying the odds ratio from an overall meta-analysis to a high-risk group and a small increase (NNH 417) extrapolated from using the absolute numbers (pooled numerators and denominators) from the overall meta-analysis.

The method of interpreting the data can give widely discrepant results. Simple pooling of absolute numbers is inaccurate because it does not account for the variations in the distribution of patients between the varenicline and placebo groups, so results are more affected by how the populations of different trials were distributed rather than the varenicline–placebo difference. However, with the formal meta-analysis, it is not clear that a single trial with a high rate of cardiovascular adverse events (about 6% in a trial of patients with cardiovascular disease) and 13 trials with very low rates of cardiovascular events should be combined in a single meta-analysis.

To estimate the risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events in patients with stable cardiovascular disease, the best estimate may come from an analysis that is based on patients with cardiovascular disease at baseline from across these trials. Until that can be accomplished, the best estimate may be from a single trial in this population,2 in which the rates of cardiovascular adverse events were 7.04% with varenicline and 5.57% with placebo. The NNH would be 68, but it was not statistically significant.

A meta-analysis of the other 13 trials found a pooled cardiovascular event rate of 0.593% with varenicline and 0.237% with placebo. The Peto odds ratio was 2.54 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.26 to 5.12. This translates into an NNH range of 103 to 1627 across the 95% CI, using a control event rate of 0.237%.

The risk of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms may be of more concern, with hundreds of reported instances, including 272 completed suicides,3 but comparative evidence is limited, and no differences were found when compared with other smoking cessation medications.4

Of course, risks must be weighed against benefits, with number needed to treat (NNT) of nine for continuous smoking cessation at one year in the trial with the higher cardiovascular event rate2 and an NNT of six to nine at 24 weeks in a Cochrane review of 10 trials.5

References

    1. Singh S,
    2. Loke YK,
    3. Spangler JG,
    4. et al
    . Risk of serious adverse cardiovascular events associated with varenicline: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2011;183:1359–66.
    1. Rigotti NA,
    2. Pipe AL,
    3. Benowitz Nl,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy and safety of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with cardiovascular disease: a randomized trial. Circulation 2010;121:221–9.
  1. Institute for Safe Medication Practices. New signals for liraglutide, quetiapine and varenicline. QuarterWatch: 2010 Quarter 3. Monitoring Med-Watch Reports. May 19, 2011. Available: www.ismp.org/quarterwatch/2010Q3.pdf (accessed 2011 July 18).
    1. Gunnell D,
    2. Irvine D,
    3. Wise L,
    4. et al
    . Varenicline and suicidal behaviour: a cohort study based on data from the General Practice Research Database. BMJ 2009;339:b3805.
    1. Cahill K,
    2. Stead LF,
    3. Lancaster T
    . Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(2):CD006103.

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire