It was another headline busting study this week: Pfizer Drug Tied to Heart Risks – a provocative title no doubt fed to the media from the publisher: the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The study was yet another meta-analysis that culled the world’s literature in an attempt to determine if a trend could be found that might implicate Chantix as a causative agent for and increased incidence of heart disease in smokers.
On its surface, the study sounds authoratative, analyzing “14-double-blind randomized controlled trials involving 8216 participants” ranging in duration from “7 to 52 weeks.”
Never mind that 57% (25) of adverse events were weighted from one study and that none of the 14 studies had odds ratios that did not cross the unity line.
Despite this, the lead author concluded:
Despite the limitations of our analysis, our findings have potential regulatory and clinical implications.
Sorry, this is not correct. There are no clinical implications of this trial. Like all metanalyses, meta-anaylses simply cannot determine cause and effect. (Note to main stream media: are you folks listening?!?)
That being said, there’s another concern I have Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*