Bupropion for control of hot flashes in breast cancer survivors: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, crossover, pilot phase II trial

Impact of Acupuncture on Hot Flashes in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Adjuvant Antiestrogen Therapy with Tamoxifen: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of acupuncture on hot flashes in breast cancer patients taking tamoxifen as an adjuvant antiestrogen therapy in Korea. Design: This trial was a randomized, no-treatment-controlled, single-blind, multi-center trial. Participants were randomized 1:1 into the acupuncture group or into the no-treatment control group. Location: This trial was conducted at Daegu Catholic University Hospital and Daegu Haany University Korean Medicine Hospital in Daegu, Republic of Korea. Participants: Patients with moderate to severe symptoms of hot flashes while receiving adjuvant antiestrogen therapy using tamoxifen after surgery for breast cancer were included. Interventions: In the acupuncture group, acupuncture was performed three times a week for 4 consecutive weeks at five predetermined points. The control group received no treatment during the study period. Study Outcome Measures: As a primary outcome, the severity of hot flashes was measured on the visual analogue scale (VAS) and total hot flash score. In addition, the quality of life (QoL) of participants was assessed as a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 30 patients were included in this study, 15 each in the acupuncture group and the control group. The participants in the acupuncture group significantly decreased the severity of hot flashes evaluated with both VAS and total hot flash scores compared with participants in the control group. Also, the acupuncture group showed improved score of a global health status/QoL scale and functional scales assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire-core questionnaire, compared with those in the control group. This trend was maintained 4 weeks after acupuncture treatment. No adverse events have been reported in this study. Conclusions: Acupuncture was effective and safe in improving hot flashes in Korean breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant antiestrogen therapy with tamoxifen, and it improved the QoL. Clinical Trial Registration: KCT0007829.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Factors associated with high placebo response in clinical studies of hot flashes: a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

High placebo response can often mask the evaluation of active treatment in clinical studies for women with hot flashes and potentially undermine the evaluation of new treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the factors associated with high placebo response (defined as the reduction in the mean number of hot flash frequency from baseline) in randomized, controlled, double-blind studies enrolling women with hot flashes.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

To identify eligible studies, Embase, MEDLINE, and BIOSIS Previews were searched for English-language articles published between April 1975 and August 2020. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized studies that assessed changes in hot flash frequency were included if they satisfied the defined criteria. We conducted univariate and multivariate analyses using categorical and numerical data. Categorical data included the following variables and levels in brackets: active treatment type (hormone therapy /non- hormone therapy /complementary and alternative medicine), administration route (oral/non-oral), study region (in/excluded the US), breast cancer population (in/excluded), entry criteria of hot flash severity (moderate to severe only/all included), parallel or crossover study, placebo run-in period before treatment (yes/no), and menopausal status (postmenopausal only/include perimenopausal/include premenopausal). Numerical data included published year, pretreatment period duration, treatment period duration, number of sites, number of total participants, number of placebo participants, number of treatment arms, mean age, BMI, and hot flash frequency at baseline.

FINDINGS

Forty-three of the 802 identified publications were included in the review. Multivariate analysis identified three individual factors associated with high placebo response: treatment period duration, number of treatment arms, and BMI.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We identified several factors associated with high placebo response in clinical studies of women with hot flashes. Knowing these factors may enable proactive implementation of operational and analytic strategies that further aid in determining the true treatment effect of an intervention.

Recent trends in the management of depression in persons with cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Depression is a prevalent comorbidity in cancer that significantly increases the risk for numerous negative health outcomes. This review updates the current evidence base for management of depression in cancer, highlighting new research directions based on the inflammatory hypothesis of depression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research on pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy for depression in cancer has shown mixed efficacy partly because of methodological issues arising from the phenomenology of depression in cancer. After decades of stagnancy, more recent high-quality clinical trials are beginning to provide an evidence base to guide treatment. Inflammatory cytokine-associated depression is a subtype of depression that may have particular relevance in cancer, opening new avenues to explore therapeutic targets and biobehavioral impacts of interventions, which may improve cancer outcomes.

SUMMARY

The continuum of severity in cancer-related depression is important to consider in management approaches. Choice of treatment should be personalized to the patient and their symptom profile as there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any particular medication or psychotherapy over another. Psychological interventions should be considered first line for mild-to-moderate depression, and pharmacological treatment added for more severe depression, which can be optimally delivered within a collaborative care model.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/YCO/A62.

Interventions to Improve Sexual Health in Women Living with and Surviving Cancer: Review and Recommendations

Sexual health concerns, both physical and psychological, are common and represent an unmet need among women with and surviving cancer. Sexual challenges and conditions negatively impact body image, satisfaction, relationships, well-being, and quality of life, yet are widely reported to be under-recognized and undertreated. To guide clinical care and future research on sexual function in women with cancer, we performed a scoping review of interventions for sexual health concerns, including sexual function, body image, genitourinary symptoms, and hot flashes. Relevant publications between 2005 and 2020 were identified by searching PubMed with a combination of medical subject headings and keywords. Articles were included if they focused on the aforementioned topics, were primary research publications, and included female cancer survivors. Studies focusing on women receiving hormone therapy for breast cancer were also included. A total of 91 investigations conducted in the US and abroad were reviewed. Most commonly, interventions included a component of psychoeducation, although pharmacologic, exercise, and other approaches have been evaluated. Many studies have focused on survivors of breast or gynecologic cancer, among other sampling and methodological limitations. These limitations underscore the need for more work on this vital survivorship issue. Recommendations for future research in this area are also offered.

Efficacy and safety of bupropion in cancer-related fatigue, a randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most prevalent complications experienced by cancer patients during and after the process of treatment. Despite conducting a lot of studies, there is no approved therapy to help manage CRF. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of bupropion on CRF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, a total of 30 eligible cancer patients suffering from fatigue were randomly divided into two groups (15 patients in each group). Bupropion was administered 75 mg/day for the first three days and 150 mg/day (divided in two doses) till the end of the study at week 6. Fatigue as the primary outcome was measured by BFI (Brief Fatigue Inventory) and FACIT-Fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) scales. Secondary outcomes included HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and performance status (PS) measured by Karnofsky and ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) scales. Assessments were done at baseline, end of the second and sixth week.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between placebo and bupropion at baseline and the end of second week. Significant difference was seen between two groups at the end of week six (P = 0.006 based on BFI) in favor of bupropion. In-group assessment showed improvement in fatigue levels in both groups during study time (P = 0.000 based on BFI for both bupropion and placebo). Secondary outcomes (e.g., HADS and PS) were not different at baseline and the end of second week. However, at the end of week six, the difference was significant in favor of bupropion.

CONCLUSION

A six-week trial of bupropion reduces the CRF and improves the PS of cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials IRCT20090613002027N12, registration date: 2018-06-01.

Mediterranean Diet and Naltrexone/Bupropion Treatment for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Breast Cancer Survivors and Non-Cancer Participants: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this pilot randomized controlled trial was to investigate the combined effect of a Mediterranean diet and naltrexone/bupropion treatment on body weight, metabolic parameters, and quality of life in overweight or obese breast cancer survivors.

METHODS

Forty-four breast cancer survivors were randomly assigned to receive the Mediterranean diet plus naltrexone/bupropion medication (breast cancer survivor MeDiet+NB group) or the Mediterranean diet alone (breast cancer survivor MeDiet-only group). Twenty-eight age-matched non-cancer patients were instructed to consume the Mediterranean diet plus naltrexone/bupropion medication (non-cancer MeDiet+NB group). After the 8-week intervention, changes in body weight, metabolic parameters, nutrient intake, and quality of life of the three groups were assessed.

RESULTS

Significant weight loss of 2.8 kg was noted for the breast cancer survivor MeDiet+NB group, 1.8 kg for the breast cancer survivor MeDiet-only group, and 2.5 kg for the non-cancer MeDiet+NB group after 8 weeks (P < 0.05 versus baseline by Wilcoxon's signed-rank test). All three groups also exhibited significantly lower fasting glucose, insulin, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance levels (P < 0.05). Quality of life as assessed by self-reported questionnaires showed improvement in all participants (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences of changes in body weights, metabolic parameters, and quality of life among the three groups or between the MeDiet+NB and MeDiet-only groups.

CONCLUSION

We found that the Mediterranean diet, with or without naltrexone/bupropion treatment, facilitates weight loss, improves metabolic parameters, and increases quality of life. The combination of the Mediterranean diet with naltrexone/bupropion treatment did not produce superior changes when compared to the Mediterranean diet alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was retrospectively registered on 10 July 2018 as NCT03581630 at ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03581630).

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to June week 4 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 2017 week 27) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to July week 4 2017). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into Review Manager 5 using a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of 10 studies (885 participants), seven of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update we included one additional unpublished study. These new data contributed to the secondary analysis, while the results of the primary analysis remained unchanged.For acute-phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found no difference between antidepressants as a class and placebo on symptoms of depression measured both as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants; very low certainty evidence) and as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants; very low certainty evidence). No trials reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, showing no difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants; very low certainty evidence). No clear evidence of a beneficial effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from our analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low certainty evidence). In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants as a class compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38, seven RCTs, 479 participants; very low certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty (quality) of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low certainty evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results, clear implications for practice cannot be deduced. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. To better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.

Amitriptyline and Sexual Function: A Systematic Review Updated for Sexual Health Practice

Amitriptyline is an old drug but is still prevalently used as the first-line treatment for a variety of common diseases. Surprisingly, knowledge of sexual risks with amitriptyline comes from only one clinical trial and several case reports from three decades ago. In the current study, a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) related to amitriptyline and sexual dysfunction (SD) was performed. The frequency, gender-difference, types, disease-specificity and time course of SD, and the relationship between SD and nonsexual adversity were studied. A total of 14 publications, including 8 qualified randomized clinical trials, were eligible. The frequency of SD in overall, male and female patients was 5.7, 11.9 and 1.7%, respectively. SD was six-fold higher in men than women. The frequency of SD was 6.9% in depressive patients compared with 0.8% in non-depressive patients ( p = .008), and gradually decreased at 8 weeks after treatment ( p = .02). Amitriptyline impacted arousal and libido more than orgasm and ejaculation in male patients but mainly libido in female patients. SD was significantly correlated with insomnia linearly whereas somnolence and nausea dually. Therefore, amitriptyline-associated SD mainly occurs in depressive and male patients, disturbs each phase of the sexual response cycle in men but mainly libido in women, gradually decreases under long-term treatment, and can be predicted by the co-existence of insomnia, somnolence or nausea during treatment. Clinicians should caution and tailor the gender and disease vulnerability of amitriptyline in their practice.

Risk of hair loss with different antidepressants: a comparative retrospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of hair loss with different antidepressants. A retrospective cohort study design using a large health claims database in the USA from 2006 to 2014 was utilized. A cohort of new user and mutually exclusive users of fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, and bupropion were followed to the first diagnosis of alopecia. The cohort was comprised of 1 025 140 new users of fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, and bupropion, with sertraline the most commonly prescribed (N=190 227) and fluvoxamine (N=3010) the least prescribed. Compared with bupropion, all other antidepressants had a lower risk of hair loss, with fluoxetine and paroxetine having the lowest risk [hazard ratio (HR)=0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.74, HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.62-0.74, respectively] and fluvoxamine having the highest risk (HR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.37). Compared with fluoxetine, bupropion had the highest risk of hair loss (HR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.35-1.58, number needed to harm=242 for 2 years) and paroxetine had the lowest risk (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.90-1.09). The results of this large population-based cohort study suggest an increase in the risk of hair loss with bupropion compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, whereas paroxetine had the lowest risk.

Management of sexual dysfunction in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review

Female sexual dysfunction occurs frequently in midlife breast cancer survivors (BCS) and encompasses problems with sexual desire, interest, arousal, orgasm and genitopelvic pain. Although common, sexual problems are under-diagnosed and under-treated in BCS. The objective of this review was to assess primary studies that intervene on sexual dysfunction in BCS. In February 2015, PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, COCHRANE and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of vaginal (lubricants, moisturizers, estrogens, dehydroepiandrosterone [DHEA], testosterone, vibrators, dilators), systemic (androgens, anti-depressants, flibanserin, ospemifene), physical therapy (physical activity, pelvic floor training), counseling and educational interventions on sexual function in BCS. Observational studies of vaginal interventions were also included due to the paucity of RCTs. The search yielded 1414 studies, 34 of which met inclusion criteria. Both interventions and outcomes, measured by 31 different sexual function scales, were heterogeneous, and therefore data were not pooled. The review found that regular and prolonged use of vaginal moisturizers was effective in improving vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and sexual satisfaction. Educational and counseling interventions targeting sexual dysfunction showed consistent improvement in various aspects of sexual health. No consistent improvements in sexual health were observed with physical activity, transdermal testosterone or hot flash interventions. There was a lack of BCS-specific data on vaginal lubricants, vibrators, dilators, pelvic floor therapy, flibanserin or ospemifene. Overall, the quality of evidence for these studies was moderate to very low. Because each of the interventions with BCS data had limited efficacy, clinical trials to test novel interventions are needed to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and improve sexual function in BCS.

Efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants on the continuum of depressive experiences in patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer are particularly vulnerable to depressive experiences, ranging from severe emotional reactions to proper depressive syndromes, including major depression. These experiences may deeply affect the course and outcome of the disease. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy acceptability of antidepressants on the continuum of depressive experiences in patients suffering from cancer.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as websites of regulatory agencies, clinical trial repositories and pharmaceutical companies, were systematically searched for published and unpublished randomised trials assessing the efficacy of antidepressants versus placebo in patients with cancer. Efficacy of antidepressants at the end of the study was the primary outcome. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014013440).

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies contributed to the analysis. Antidepressants (particularly the selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors and mianserin) were more effective than placebo in relieving depressive experiences in both patients with major depression or depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.596, 95% confidence interval -1.041 to -0.150), as well as in patients with other cancer-related distressing symptoms (standardised mean difference -0.229, 95% confidence interval -0.419 to -0.039). We found evidence that efficacy was positively associated with length of treatment. No differences between antidepressants and placebo were found in terms of overall acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants should be considered as one treatment option for relieving the burden of depressive experiences in patients with cancer.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have been shown to have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anti-cancer treatment, suicide risk and likely even the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants in this population group are few and often report conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 3, 2014), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2014 week 17) and PsycINFO Ovid (1987 to April week 4, 2014). We additionally handsearched the trial databases of the most relevant national, international and pharmaceutical company trial registers and drug-approving agencies for published, unpublished and ongoing controlled trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs allocating adults (18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis) comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a form specifically designed for the aims of this review. The two authors compared the data extracted and then entered data into RevMan 5 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, outcome measures for each time point of interest, cost analysis and sponsorship by a drug company. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved a total of nine studies (861 participants), with seven studies contributing to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Four of these compared antidepressants and placebo, two compared two antidepressants and one-three armed study compared two antidepressants and a placebo arm. For the acute phase treatment response (6 to 12 weeks), we found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class on symptoms of depression compared with placebo when measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to 0.11, five RCTs, 266 participants) or as a proportion of people who had depression (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08, five RCTs, 417 participants). No trials reported data on the follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons we only retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants, providing very low quality evidence for the difference between these two classes (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18, three RCTs, 237 participants). No clear evidence of an effect of antidepressants versus either placebo or other antidepressants emerged from the analyses of the secondary efficacy outcomes (dichotomous outcome, response at 6 to 12 weeks, very low quality evidence). We found very low quality evidence for the effect of antidepressants as a class in terms of dropouts due to any cause compared with placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.53, six RCTs, 455 participants), as well as between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, three RCTs, 237 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, available studies were very few and of low quality. This review found very low quality evidence for the effects of these drugs compared with placebo. On the basis of these results clear implications for practice cannot be made. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which agent should be prescribed may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of individuals with major depression, also taking into account that data on medically ill patients suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer with depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder, are urgently needed to better inform clinical practice.

Management of menopause in women with breast cancer

Increasing breast cancer incidence and decreasing mortality have highlighted the importance of survivorship issues related to breast cancer. A consideration of the issues related to menopause is therefore of great importance to both women and clinicians. Menopause/menopausal symptoms, with significant negative effects on quality of life and potential long-term health impacts, may in women with breast cancer be associated with: (1) natural menopause occurring concurrently with a breast cancer diagnosis; (2) recurrence of menopausal symptoms following cessation of hormone replacement therapy; (3) treatment-induced menopause (chemotherapy, ovarian ablation/suppression) and adjuvant endocrine therapy. A variety of non-hormonal pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies have been investigated as therapeutic options for menopausal symptoms with mixed results, and ongoing research is required. This review presents a summary of the causes, common problematic symptoms of menopause (vasomotor, genitourinary and sexual dysfunction), and longer-term consequences (cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis) related to menopause. It proposes an evidenced-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of menopause/menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer.