Efficacy and safety of mianserin in the treatment of depression of women 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 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.

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.

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.

A research study review of effectiveness of treatments for psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients: needs assessment for future research and an impassioned plea

BACKGROUND

Rates of psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients (delirium, depression, anxiety disorders) remain unchanged. However, patient numbers have increased as the population has aged; indeed, cancer is a chief cause of mortality and morbidity in older populations. Effectiveness of psychiatric interventions and research to evaluate, inform, and improve interventions is critical to these patients' care. This article's intent is to report results from a recent review study on the effectiveness of interventions for psychiatric conditions common to end-stage cancer patients; the review study assessed the state of research regarding treatment effectiveness. Unlike previous review studies, this one included non-traditional/alternative therapies and spirituality interventions that have undergone scientific inquiry.

METHODS

A five-phase systematic strategy and a theoretic grounded iterative methodology were used to identify studies for inclusion and to craft an integrated, synthesized, comprehensive, and reasonably current end-product.

RESULTS

Psychiatric medication therapies undoubtedly are the most powerful treatments. Among them, the most effective (i.e., "best practices benchmarks") are: (1) for delirium, typical antipsychotics-though there is no difference between typical vs. atypical and other antipsychotics, except for different side-effect profiles, (2) for depression, if patient life expectancy is ≥4-6 weeks, then a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and if < 3 weeks, then psychostimulants or ketamine, and these generally are useful anytime in the cancer disease course, and (3) for anxiety disorders, bio-diazepams (BDZs) are most used and most effective. A universal consensus suggests that psychosocial (i.e., talk) therapy and spirituality interventions fortify the therapeutic alliance and psychiatric medication protocols. However, trial studies have had mixed results regarding effectiveness in reducing psychiatric symptoms, even for touted psychotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's findings prompted a testable linear conceptual model of co-factors and their importance for providing effective psychiatric care for end-stage cancer patients. The complicated and tricky part is negotiating patients' diagnoses while articulating internal intricacies within and between each of the model's co-factors. There is a relative absence of scientifically derived information and need for more large-scale, diverse scientific inquiry. Thus, this article is an impassioned plea for accelerated study and better care for end-stage cancer patients' psychiatric conditions.

A Sense of Proportion: The Place of Psychiatry in Medicine

Psychiatric disorders have a high prevalence in medical and surgical patients and the need for an effective liaison psychiatry service is widely accepted. However, the development of liaison psychiatry may be jeopardised by the trend towards establishing psychiatric facilities in the community rather than in hospitals. Alternative methods of funding may need to be established if the future of liaison psychiatry is to be safeguarded.

Treatment of Depression in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Critical Review

Aims and background

To summarize current knowledge on psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic options for patients with breast cancer and comorbid depression, starting from the psychiatric viewpoint. Issues on diagnostic boundaries of depression and outcome measures are raised.

Methods

We completed a literature review from the last 30 years (until March 2012) using PubMed by pairing the key words: ‘breast cancer and depression treatment’ (about 1431 works, including 207 reviews), ‘breast cancer and antidepressants’ (about 305 works, including 66 reviews), and in particular ‘selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and breast cancer’ (38 works, including 10 reviews) and ‘breast cancer and psychotherapy’ (603 works, including 84 reviews). Papers in the English language were selected, including recent reviews.

Results

There is little evidence for the superiority of any one specific intervention with pharmacological options or psychotherapy. The heterogeneity of assessment criteria, the small number of subjects collected in systematic studies, the difficulty in adopting standardized outcome measures, and the limited numbers of available drugs with a favorable side effect profile are the main limitations that emerge from the literature. No conclusive findings are available on mid-term/long-term treatment strategies, or when depression is part of a bipolar disorder.

Conclusions

Further research is necessary to define the most appropriate approach to depression when it occurs in comorbidity with breast cancer. A more accurate definition of the clinical phenotypes of depression in the special population of patients with breast cancer is suggested as a key issue.

Psycho-oncology: a coming of age

Every once in a while there is a mini renaissance in an area of medicine. The flowering of research that has taken place world-wide in the field of psycho-oncology in the last decade is one such example. This deepening interest in all the different psychological aspects of cancer, with the prevention of psychiatric morbidity and the development of a healthy adaptation being the main outcome aims, has led to hundreds of publications in recent years, along with the launching of two high-quality journals, the Journal of Psychosocial Oncology and the Journal of Psycho-Oncology. There have been numerous robust research findings proving the efficacy of psychosocial interventions in cancer patients on a range of outcome measures (Stein et al, 1993; Fawzy et al, 1995). The search for conclusive evidence of the positive effects of psychological therapy on disease progression and hence survival rates has also developed, becoming a holy grail for researchers in mind/body medicine, and has been brought tantalisingly within reach by a number of well-controlled trials (Spiegel et al, 1989; Richardson et al, 1990; Fawzy et al, 1993; Ratcliffe et al, 1995).

Systematic review and meta-analysis of collaborative care interventions for depression in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have found limited evidence for the effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the management of depression in patients with cancer. This paper provides the first meta-analysis of newer collaborative care interventions, which may include both types of treatment, as well as integrated delivery and follow-up. Meta-analyses of pharmacological and psychological interventions are included as a comparison.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library from July 2005 to January 2015 for randomized controlled trials of depression treatments for cancer patients diagnosed with a major depressive disorder, or who met a threshold on a validated depression rating scale was conducted. Meta-analyses were conducted using summary data.

RESULTS

Key findings included eight reports of four collaborative care interventions, eight pharmacological, and nine psychological trials. A meta-analysis demonstrated that collaborative care interventions were significantly more effective than usual care (standardized mean difference = -0.49, p = 0.003), and depression reduction was maintained at 12 months. By comparison, short-term (up to 12 weeks), but not longer-term effectiveness was demonstrated for both pharmacological and psychological interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Collaborative care interventions have newly emerged as multidisciplinary care delivery models, which may result in more long-term depression remission. This review also updates previous findings of modest evidence for the effectiveness of both pharmacological and psychological interventions for threshold depression in cancer patients. Research designs focusing on combined treatments and delivery systems may best further the limited evidence-base for the management of depression in cancer.

Management of Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

This report updates the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care guideline for the management of depression in adult patients with cancer. This guideline covers pharmacologic, psychological, and collaborative care interventions, with a focus on integrating practical management tools to assist clinicians in delivering appropriate treatments for depression in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Recommendations were developed by synthesizing information from extant guidelines and reviews and searching for randomized controlled trials from the date of database inception (1964 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE) to January 2015. Quality assessment of guidelines and systematic reviews were conducted by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Final recommendations were developed through a standardized Program in Evidence-Based Care multidisciplinary expert and knowledge user review process.

RESULTS

Two high-quality relevant clinical practice guidelines, eight pharmacologic trials, nine psychological trials, and eight collaborative care intervention trials composed the evidence base upon which the recommendations were developed. Eight specific recommendations were made to establish a standard of care for the management of depression in patients with cancer. The recommendations and practical management tools were reviewed as being well organized and helpful, although systemic barriers to implementation were identified.

CONCLUSION

This updated guideline supports the previous general recommendation that patients with cancer who have depression may benefit from psychological and/or pharmacologic interventions, without evidence for the superiority of any specific treatment over another. New recommendations for a collaborative care model that incorporates a stepped care approach suggest that multidisciplinary mental health care restructuring may be required for optimal management of depression.

Comorbid Depression in Adult Oncology

Depression is a common medical disorder that frequently occurs comorbidly with other medical disorders. Unfortunately, depression often goes unrecognized either due to somatic symptoms, which may be confused with the physical effects of cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation, or due to the belief that depression is a normal part of the cancer diagnosis. A combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is the most effective treatment for depression in cancer patients. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are the most frequently used antidepressants. Selection of an antidepressant should be based on the patient's symptoms. Recognition and treatment of depressive symptoms in oncology patients is very important, and effective treatment may improve the oncology patients' quality of life and may also affect survival.

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.

Reevaluating the role of antidepressants in cancer-related depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Prior reviews evaluating the role of antidepressants in cancer-related depression have drawn conflicting conclusions. These reviews have also not explored differences in efficacy and tolerability between antidepressants. We conducted a meta-analysis to address these limitations.

METHOD

We searched Medline (1948-2013), the Cochrane Library (1800-2013), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1986-2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (2013) and meeting abstracts. We included randomized trials comparing antidepressants to placebo or no treatment for cancer-related depression. We used random effects to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD).

RESULTS

Of 5178 potentially eligible citations, 9 trials (1169 subjects) met inclusion criteria. Trials of mianserin found a robust reduction in depression scores at ≥4 weeks of treatment (SMD: 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24-0.95). Similar, but less robust, results were observed with paroxetine (SMD: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.01-0.42) and fluoxetine (SMD 0.34, 95% CI: 0.02-0.66). Conversely, there was no advantage with amitriptyline or desipramine. Compared to placebo, the odds of dropping out due to side effect were higher with fluoxetine and paroxetine and lower with mianserin. Methodological quality was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Paroxetine, fluoxetine and mianserin improve cancer-related depression but may vary in efficacy and tolerability. High-quality, randomized trials of newer antidepressant agents are needed to identify optimal treatments for managing cancer-related depression.

Treatment of depression in adults with cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Depression is a leading cause of disease burden worldwide and is especially problematic in people with chronic diseases, including cancer. Although depression can be effectively treated in the general population using antidepressant medication and psychological treatments, these treatments may have different benefits and harms in cancer patients. Previous reviews have not adequately addressed this topic. We therefore aimed to determine which, if any, treatments are effective for patients with diagnoses of both cancer and depression.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review of relevant randomized controlled trials identified through searches of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL).

RESULTS

Seven relatively small trials met the selection criteria. These provided some evidence that antidepressant medication, given alone or in combination with a psychological treatment, may be effective. We found no good evidence for psychological treatments given alone or for any other forms of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is very limited evidence from clinical trials to guide the treatment of cancer patients with a diagnosis of depression, especially for psychological treatments. High quality trials of treatments for depression in patients with cancer are urgently needed.

The biology of depression in cancer and the relationship between depression and cancer progression

The prevalence of depressive symptoms in patients with cancer exceeds that observed in the general population and depression is associated with a poorer prognosis in cancer patients. The increased prevalence is not solely explained by the psychosocial stress associated with the diagnosis. Pro-inflammatory cytokines, which induce sickness behaviour with symptoms overlapping those of clinical depression, are validated biomarkers of increased inflammation in patients with cancer. A growing literature reveals that chronic inflammatory processes associated with stress may also underlie depression symptoms in general, and in patients with cancer in particular. Therapeutic modalities, which are frequently poorly tolerated, are used in the treatment of cancer. These interventions are associated with inflammatory reactions, which may help to explain their toxicity. There is evidence that antidepressants can effectively treat symptoms of depression in cancer patients though the database is meager. Novel agents with anti-inflammatory properties may be effective alternatives for patients with treatment-resistant depression who exhibit evidence of increased inflammation.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in cancer-related psychiatric disorders across the trajectory of cancer care: a review

At least 25-30% of patients with cancer and an even higher percentage of patients in an advanced phase of illness meet the criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis, including depression, anxiety, stress-related syndromes, adjustment disorders, sleep disorders and delirium. A number of studies have accumulated over the last 35 years on the use of psychotropic drugs as a pillar in the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Major advances in psycho-oncology research have also shown the efficacy of psychotropic drugs as adjuvant treatment of cancer-related symptoms, such as pain, hot flushes, pruritus, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and cognitive impairment. The knowledge about pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, clinical use, safety, side effects and efficacy of psychotropic drugs in cancer care is essential for an integrated and multidimensional approach to patients treated in different settings, including community-based centres, oncology, and palliative care. A search of the major databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) was conducted in order to summarize relevant data concerning the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy for cancer-related psychiatric disorders in cancer patients across the trajectory of the disease.

Effects of screening for psychological distress on patient outcomes in cancer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Several practice guidelines recommend routine screening for psychological distress in cancer care. The objective was to evaluate the effect of screening cancer patients for psychological distress by assessing the (1) effectiveness of interventions to reduce distress among patients identified as distressed; and (2) effects of screening for distress on distress outcomes.

METHODS

CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases were searched through April 6, 2011 with manual searches of 45 relevant journals, reference list review, citation tracking of included articles, and trial registry reviews through June 30, 2012. Articles in any language on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared treatment for patients with psychological distress to placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); or (2) assessed the effect of screening on psychological distress in a RCT.

RESULTS

There were 14 eligible RCTs for treatment of distress, and 1 RCT on the effects of screening on patient distress. Pharmacological, psychotherapy and collaborative care interventions generally reduced distress with small to moderate effects. One study investigated effects of screening for distress on psychological outcomes, and it found no improvement.

CONCLUSION

Treatment studies reported modest improvement in distress symptoms, but only a single eligible study was found on the effects of screening cancer patients for distress, and distress did not improve in screened patients versus those receiving usual care. Because of the lack of evidence of beneficial effects of screening cancer patients for distress, it is premature to recommend or mandate implementation of routine screening.

Antidepressants in the treatment of depression/depressive symptoms in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the past thirty years a number of studies have suggested that antidepressants can be effective in the treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with cancer. The aim of this paper was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to perform a meta-analysis in order to quantify their overall effect.

METHODS

Pubmed and the Cochrane libraries were searched for the time period between 1980 and 2010.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified and reviewed. Six of them (with a total of 563 patients) fulfilled the criteria for meta-analysis, but exhibited an unclear risk for bias. The estimated effect size was 1.56 with 95% CI: 1.07- 2.28 (p= 0.021). There were no differences in discontinuation rates between antidepressants and placebo groups (RR= 0.86 with 95% CI 0.47- 1.56, p=0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that antidepressants can be effective in treating depressive symptoms beside clinical depression. When considering the risk of side effects and interactions and the heterogeneity among the mostly small studies, a general recommendation cannot be made until well-controlled studies are conducted.

Influence of age, performance status, cancer activity, and IL-6 on anxiety and depression in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Depression and anxiety are the core disorders causing emotional distress in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer. The aim of our study was to screen metastatic breast cancer outpatients for anxiety and depression, and to investigate the influence of age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), cancer activity, and inflammation as represented by IL-6 levels on these two mood disorders. Pts treated with chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (n = 70) were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for symptoms (scores 0-21) and caseness (score ≥11) of clinical depression and anxiety. Blood samples for IL-6 concentrations were collected at 10:00 a.m. A total of 22 (31.4 %) pts were diagnosed with caseness of clinical depression and 23 (32.9 %) pts with clinical anxiety, while 12 pts were diagnosed positive for both mood disorders. Depression and anxiety were positively but moderately correlated (Spearman's r (2) = 0.24, p < 0.001). IL-6 was significantly correlated with symptoms of depression (r (2) = 0.42, p < 0.001) and to a lesser extent to symptoms of anxiety (r (2) = 0.16, p = 0.001). In addition, IL-6 was positively associated with tumor progression (p < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that tumor progression (standardized b = 0.226, p = 0.047), symptoms of anxiety (b = 0.292, p = 0.016), and IL-6 (b = 0.314, p = 0.007) were independently associated with clinical depression, whereas anxiety was linked to tumor progression (b = 0.238, p = 0.030), symptoms of depression (b = 0.407, p < 0.001) and age (b = -0.381, p < 0.001), but not to IL-6 (b = 0.168, p = 0.134). Even though a positive correlation between depression and anxiety exists, clinical parameters like age, cancer activity, KPS, and IL-6 do influence depression and anxiety differently. Unlike clinical depression, anxiety is not associated with increased IL-6 levels, however, shows a reciprocal correlation with age.

Meta-analysis of efficacy of interventions for elevated depressive symptoms in adults diagnosed with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are at increased risk for depression compared with individuals with no cancer diagnosis, yet few interventions target depressed cancer patients.

METHODS

Efficacy of psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic interventions for depression in cancer patients who met an entry threshold for depressive symptoms was examined by meta-analysis. Five electronic databases were systematically reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials meeting the selection criteria. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' g and were pooled to compare pre- and postrandomization depressive symptoms with a random effects model. Subgroup analyses tested moderators of effect sizes, such as comparison of different intervention modalities, with a mixed effects model. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials (six psychotherapeutic and four pharmacologic studies) met the selection criteria; 1362 participants with mixed cancer types and stages had been randomly assigned to treatment groups. One outlier trial was removed from analyses. The random effects model showed interventions to be superior to control conditions on reducing depressive symptoms postintervention (Hedges' g = 0.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 0.56, P < .001). In the four psychotherapeutic trials with follow-up assessment, interventions were more effective than control conditions up to 12-18 months after patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (P < .001). Although each approach was more effective than the control conditions in improving depressive symptoms (P < .001), subgroup analyses showed that cognitive behavioral therapy appeared more effective than problem-solving therapy (P = .01), but not more effective than pharmacologic intervention (P = .07).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that psychological and pharmacologic approaches can be targeted productively toward cancer patients with elevated depressive symptoms. Research is needed to maximize effectiveness, accessibility, and integration into clinical care of interventions for depressed cancer patients.

Gynecologic care for breast cancer survivors: assisting in the transition to wellness

Currently, there are >2 million survivors of breast cancer in the United States. Two years after cancer treatment, patients may transition to primary care providers and/or gynecologists. Many of these survivors may have difficulties with menopausal symptoms. If they do not know already, some of these women may want or need risk assessment for hereditary- or treatment-induced second cancers. At least 20% will also have significant psychologic, sexual, and/or relationship difficulties that require attention. All of the women will need assistance to learn and follow recommendations for surveillance, detecting recurrence, and promoting wellness. Thus, gynecologists play a critical role in helping these patients in their health care transitions. To assist the gynecologists, we have reviewed the evaluation and management of common sequelae of breast cancer diagnoses and treatments.

Evidence-Based Treatment of Depression in Patients With Cancer

Purpose

Depression is a common condition in patients with cancer, although there has been a relative paucity of research on the effectiveness of treatment in this population. This review summarizes the psychosocial and pharmacologic treatment of depression in patients with cancer based on a consideration of evidence regarding etiologic factors and treatment outcomes.

Methods

A review of the evidence base for psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions for depression in patients with cancer was performed, including original studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analytic studies in the literature.

Results

Recent evidence from randomized controlled trials has demonstrated the efficacy of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments to alleviate depression in patients with cancer. Further research is needed to establish their relative and combined efficacy and their role in the treatment of depression that is less severe and occurs in association with more advanced disease. First-line recommendations for the treatment of depression in patients with cancer are difficult to derive based on current evidence, because comparative studies have not been conducted to support the superiority of one treatment modality over another in this population.

Conclusion

Both psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions have been shown to be efficacious in treating depression in cancer, but further research is needed to establish their relative and combined benefit. Future research directions include the development and evaluation of novel interventions targeted to specific biologic and psychosocial risk factors.

Rapid improvement of depression and quality of life with escitalopram treatment in outpatients with breast cancer: a 12-week, open-label prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Among patients with cancer, the management of depression is very important to improve quality of life as well as distress. Because the efficacy of escitalopram, a potent serotonin reuptake inhibitor, has not been well evaluated in cancer patients, we investigated its effects on depression and quality of life in outpatients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A 12-week, open-label, prospective study with escitalopram (5-20mg/day) was performed in 79 breast cancer outpatients with depression. The primary outcome was measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), which was administered at baseline, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after treatment. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory (MDASI), Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S), and Distress Thermometer (DT) were also used to measure improvement in symptoms, distress, and quality of life.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, HAMD, DT, and CGI-S scores were significantly decreased at week 1 and onwards, and FACT-B and MDSAI were improved at week 2 and onwards. At the end point (week 12), all FACT-B subscales including the physical, emotional, social/family, functional well-being, and the breast cancer subscales were improved. Improvement in distress and quality of life was associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms. Of all participants, 45.1% met the response criterion (at least a 50% decrease in HAMD total score), and 30.6% met the remission criterion (HAMD total score ≤ 7) at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, escitalopram improved quality of life and reduced depression in breast cancer patients. Symptoms rapidly improved within 1 week, influencing quality of life. Escitalopram may be an effective treatment of depressive symptoms in breast cancer patients.

The prevalence and pharmacotherapy of depression in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Depression is a frequent and serious comorbid condition in cancer patients that may require special attention. We investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer and review the current state of evidence regarding the effectiveness of drug treatment of depression in this group.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search for reports of prevalence rate of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in cancer patients based on Structured Clinical Interview based on DSM (SCID). We estimated the prevalence rate by combining the data of all reports. In addition we identified controlled trials studying the effect of psychotropic drugs in depressed cancer patients.

RESULTS

Based on the 31 reports, the estimated prevalence rate of depression in cancer patients is 10.8% (996/9248). There were 8 trials comparing antidepressant with other active treatment in cancer patients. Only mianserin and alprazolam demonstrated to improve the depressive symptoms.

LIMITATIONS

This literature review cannot resolve the challenge of diagnosing depression in severely ill and is subject to publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high prevalence of depression in cancer patients, studies on effective pharmacotherapy are relatively scarce. The evidence for the efficacy of conventional medication used for the treatment of depression such as tricyclics antidepressants and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors is very limited. It is possible that they may be less suitable in this setting because of their relatively late onset of action. The use of psychostimulants which have a rapid onset of action therefore deserves more attention.

Depression and end-of-life care for patients with cancer

Patients with cancer and depression experience more physical symptoms, have poorer quality of life, and are more likely to have suicidal thoughts or a desire for hastened death than are cancer patients who are not depressed. Despite the ubiquity of depressive symptoms in cancer patients at the end of life, critical questions remain unanswered with respect to etiopathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of depression in these vulnerable patients. The pharmacotherapy of depression in patients with advanced cancer should be guided by a palliative care approach focused on symptom reduction, irrespective of whether the patient meets diagnostic criteria for major depression. Earlier and more intensive supportive care for patients with cancer reduces symptom burden and may prolong life for patients with advanced disease. Symptom-oriented clinical trials are needed to improve end-of-life cancer care.

Pharmacological interventions for people with depression and chronic physical health problems: systematic review and meta-analyses of safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant drugs are widely used in the treatment of depression in people with chronic physical health problems.

AIMS

To examine evidence related to efficacy, tolerability and safety of antidepressants for people with depression and with chronic physical health problems.

METHOD

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled efficacy trials of antidepressants in depression in chronic physical health conditions. Systematic review of safety studies.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria (5794 participants). In placebo-controlled studies, antidepressants showed a significant advantage in respect to remission and/or response: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) risk ratio (RR) = 0.81 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) for remission, RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.71-0.97) for response; tricyclics RR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.40-1.25 (not significant)) for remission, RR = 0.55 (95% 0.43-0.70) for response. Both groups of drugs were less well tolerated than placebo (leaving study early due to adverse effects) for SSRIs RR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.16-2.78), for tricyclics RR = 2.00 (95% CI 0.99-3.57). Only SSRIs were shown to improve quality of life. Direct comparisons of SSRIs and tricyclics revealed no advantage for either group for remission, response, effect size or tolerability. Effectiveness studies suggest a neutral or beneficial effect on mortality for antidepressants in participants with recent myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants are efficacious and safe in the treatment of depression occurring in the context of chronic physical health problems. The SSRIs are probably the antidepressants of first choice given their demonstrable effect on quality of life and their apparent safety in cardiovascular disease.

Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in palliative care: systematic review and meta-analysis

Depression can exacerbate symptoms associated with life-threatening illness and increase disability and distress. In palliative care, depression occurs in a context of multiple symptoms, which complicates detection and treatment. While systematic reviews of antidepressants have been conducted in specific life-threatening diseases, no previous study has synthesized the evidence in palliative care. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of depression in palliative care. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO and Cochrane trials registers were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing antidepressants and placebo for the treatment of depression in palliative care. The primary outcome was efficacy assessed at three time-points. Twenty-five studies were included in the review. At each time-point antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo: 4-5 weeks odds ratio (OR) 1.93 (1.15-3.42) p = 0.001; 6-8 weeks OR 2.25 (1.38-3.67) p = 0.001; 9-18 weeks OR 2.71 (1.50-4.91) p = 0.001. This review provides evidence that antidepressants are effective in treating depression in palliative care. Their superiority over placebo is apparent within 4-5 weeks and increases with continued use. It is probable that the effect sizes yielded in this review overestimate the efficacy of antidepressants due to biases such as selective reporting and publication. Nevertheless, the magnitude and consistency of the effect suggests genuine benefit.

Antidepressant prescription pattern in a hospice program

Prevalence of treatable depression is as high as 25% among terminally ill patients. The incidence of antidepressant use was ascertained at the Mayo Hospice Program in Rochester, Minnesota, from June 1, 2007, to December 31, 2008. The 18-month cumulative probability to receive an antidepressant during hospice was estimated at 11.7%. Depression and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the most common clinical indication and class of antidepressant, respectively. Survival was the main predictor to receive an antidepressant with an odds ratio of 2.71 (95%CI: 1.60-4.60) for each additional day in hospice. Proper diagnostic tools for this population, education about the benefits of antidepressants in palliative care, and clear guidelines about antidepressant class and dosages are needed.

Romanian psychiatric literature: analysis of accessibility and nature of Romanian psychiatric articles

BACKGROUND

Romania is a low-income country of 22 million people and, currently, information regarding mental health research is limited. Romania is one of the last countries in eastern Europe not to have its own bibliographic biomedical database.

AIM

To assess the content and quality of Romanian psychiatric research activity over time.

METHOD

EMBASE (1980 to April 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to April 2008) and PsycINFO (1806 to April 2008) were systematically searched for psychiatric articles originating from Romania. The sample from PsycINFO was described.

RESULTS

PsycINFO was by far the best source of Romanian mental health literature with a considerable increase in the publication activity since 2000 (PsycINFO identified 3236 hits, MEDLINE 549, EMBASE 139). Most papers are in English, but a sizeable minority are in Romanian (30%), French (4%) or Hungarian (4%). The main topics of interest are cognitive processes, creativity, schizophrenia and cognitive development and stress and are, according to PsycINFO's indexing, 'empirical studies'. Seventeen randomised trials were identified with all studies after 2000 being sponsored by industry.

CONCLUSIONS

Surprisingly, and not in keeping with other studies of the literature of neighbouring countries, PsycINFO is the major source of psychiatric bibliographic records of this region. There are signs of a resurgence of research activity in Romania and as the number of local mental health workers increases we can expect more output. Industry is now funding evaluative studies in Romania. As everywhere, but perhaps more acutely in situations of severely limited research support, there is a difficult balance to be struck between benefiting support and losing independence.

Antidepressants for depression in physically ill people

BACKGROUND

There is an increased risk of depression in people with a physical illness. Depression is associated with reduced treatment adherence, poor prognosis, increased disability and higher mortality in many physical illnesses. Antidepressants are effective in the treatment of depression in physically healthy populations, but there is less clarity regarding their use in physically ill patients. This review updates Gill's Cochrane review (2000), which found that antidepressants were effective for depression in physical illness. Since Gill there have been a number of larger trials assessing the efficacy of antidepressants in this context.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of depression in patients with a physical illness.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) trial registers were conducted together with supplementary searches of The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the standard bibliographic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Reference lists of included studies were scanned and trials registers were searched to identify additional unpublished data. Last searches were run in December 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of antidepressants and placebo in the treatment of depression in adults with a physical illness. Depression included diagnoses of Major Depression, Adjustment Disorder and Dysthymia based on standardised criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was efficacy 6-8 weeks after randomisation. Data were also extracted at three additional time-points (4-5 weeks, 9-18 weeks, >18 weeks). Acceptability and tolerability were assessed by comparing the number of drop-outs and adverse events. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous data (response to treatment). Standardised mean differences with 95% CI were calculated for continuous data (mean depression score). Data were pooled using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-one studies including 3603 participants were included in the review. Forty-four studies including 3372 participants contributed data towards the efficacy analyses. Pooled efficacy data for the primary outcome provided an OR of 2.33, CI 1.80-3.00, p<0.00001 (25 studies, 1674 patients) favouring antidepressants. Antidepressants were also more efficacious than placebo at the other time-points. At 6-8 weeks, fewer patients receiving placebo dropped out compared to patients treated with an antidepressant. Dry mouth and sexual dysfunction were more common in patients treated with an antidepressant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that antidepressants are superior to placebo in treating depression in physical illness. However, it is likely that publication and reporting biases exaggerated the effect sizes obtained. Further research is required to determine the comparative efficacy and acceptability of particular antidepressants in this population.

The effect of melatonergic and non-melatonergic antidepressants on sleep: weighing the alternatives

In DSM-IV the occurrence of disturbed sleep is one of the principal diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). Further, there is evidence of reciprocity between the two conditions such that, even in the absence of current depressive symptoms, disturbed sleep often predicts their development. The present review discusses the effects of antidepressants on sleep and evaluates the use of the recently developed melatonin agonist-selective serotonin antagonists on sleep and depression. Although many antidepressants such as the tricyclics, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, several serotonin receptor antagonists and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have all been found successful in treating depression, their use is often associated with a disruptive effect on sleep. SSRIs, currently the most widely prescribed of the antidepressants, are well known for their instigation or exacerbation of insomnia. The recently introduced novel melatonin agonist and selective serotonin antagonist antidepressant, agomelatine, which has melatonin MT(1) and MT(2) receptor agonist and 5-HT(2c) antagonist properties, has been useful in treating patients with MDD. Its rapid onset of action and effectiveness in improving the mood of depressed patients has been attributed to its ability to improve sleep quality. These properties underline the use of melatonin analogues as a promising alternative for the treatment of depression.

Treatment of depression in cancer patients

Question

What is the efficacy of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments for major depression and other depressive disorders in cancer populations?

Perspectives

Depression occurs at an increased rate in medically ill populations, including patients with cancer. In the general population, depression has been shown to be responsive to structured forms of psychotherapy and to pharmacologic interventions. The Supportive Care Guidelines Group conducted a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of those therapies in patients with depression and cancer and developed the present clinical practice guideline based on that review and on expert consensus.

Outcomes

Outcomes of interest included symptomatic response to treatment, discontinuation rate of treatment, adverse effects, and quality of life.

Methodology

Clinical recommendations were developed by the Supportive Care Guidelines Group based on a systematic review of the published literature through June 2005, feedback obtained from Ontario health care providers on the draft recommendations, the Report Approval Panel (rap) of Cancer Care Ontario’s Program in Evidence-Based Care, and expert consensus.

Results

The systematic review of the literature included eleven trials (seven of pharmacologic agents and four of non-pharmacologic interventions). Feedback received from 44 responding health care providers and the rap on the draft recommendations was addressed and documented in the guideline.

Among providers, 82% agreed with the draft recommendations as stated, 68% agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline, and 73% indicated that they would be likely to use the guideline in their own practice.

Practice Guideline

These recommendations apply to adult cancer patients with a diagnosis of major depression or other non-bipolar depressive disorders. They do not address the treatment of non-syndromal depressive symptoms, for which specific antidepressant treatment is not usually indicated. The guideline is intended both for oncology health professionals and for mental health professionals engaged in the treatment of cancer patients. Expert consensus was central to the development of the guideline recommendations because of limited evidence in cancer patients.

Recommendations

Treatment of pain and other reversible physical symptoms should be instituted before or with initiation of specific antidepressant treatment.

Antidepressant medications should be considered for the treatment of moderate-to-severe major depression in cancer patients. Current evidence does not support the relative superiority of one pharmacologic treatment over another, nor the superiority of pharmacologic treatment over psychosocial interventions. The choice of an antidepressant should be informed by individual medication and patient factors: the side effect profiles of the medication, tolerability of treatment (including the potential for interaction with other current medications), response to prior treatment, and patient preference.

Cancer patients diagnosed with major depression may benefit from a combined modality approach that includes both psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions. Psychosocial treatment approaches that may be of value include those that provide information and support and those that address any combination of emotional, cognitive, and behavioural factors.

Qualifying Statements

Referral to a mental health specialist is appropriate when the diagnosis of depression is unclear, when the syndrome is severe, when patients do not respond to treatment, or when other complicating factors that may affect the choice of treatment are present.

Although care has been taken in the preparation of the information contained in this guideline, any person seeking to apply or to consult the guideline is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances or to seek out the supervision of a qualified clinician.

Symptom indicator of severity of depression in cancer patients: a comparison of the DSM-IV criteria with alternative diagnostic criteria

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the performances of several diagnostic criteria items for judging the severity of major depression among cancer patients.

METHOD

Using modern item response theory, we examined the performances of the diagnostic criteria outlined by the DSM-IV and two sets of conceptual diagnostic criteria (the Endicott and the Cavanaugh criteria) in a series of 728 cancer patients who had been diagnosed with major depression using an inclusive approach.

RESULTS

While all the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, including feelings of worthlessness and suicidal ideation, had a low ability for discriminating the severity of depression, two proposed items (not participating in medical care and social withdrawal) appeared to be good markers of moderately severe major depressive disorder among cancer patients. In addition, the items "fearfulness or depressed appearance in face or body posture" and "brooding, self-pity or pessimism" may be good markers for mild major depressive disorders, while the item "cannot be cheered up, doesn't smile, no response to good news or funny situations" may be a good marker for severe major depressive disorder.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present study suggest that alternative criteria may have utility in diagnosing depression severity in cancer patients.

Depression and cancer: an unexplored and unresolved emergent issue in elderly patients

Despite the high prevalence of depressive disorders in cancer patients and elderly people, the topic of depression in elderly cancer patients still remains unexplored. This emerges from a systematic review of the literature conducted to investigate issues of depression, diagnosis, pathogenesis, treatment and their complex neuroimmunobiological interactions. Indeed, it becomes apparent that depression in elderly patients with cancer may have a peculiar phenomenology. In addition, the moderate rate of major depressive disorder and the high rate of minor depressive disorder are accompanied by subthreshold forms of depression that are at risk to be underrecognized and untreated. Immune dysfunction may represent a common pathogenic ground of depression, cancer and aging. This may have important implications for treatment. In the near future, we need to develop validated mood disorder diagnoses and verify antidepressant treatment efficacy for elderly cancer patients with depression in order to improve their clinical outcome and quality of life.

Anxiety disorders and comorbid medical illness

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of the role of anxiety disorders in medical illness.

METHOD

The Anxiety Disorders Association of America held a multidisciplinary conference from which conference leaders and speakers reviewed presentations and discussions, considered literature on prevalence, comorbidity, etiology and treatment, and made recommendations for research. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and chronic pain were reviewed.

RESULTS

A substantial literature supports clinically important associations between psychiatric illness and chronic medical conditions. Most research focuses on depression, finding that depression can adversely affect self-care and increase the risk of incident medical illness, complications and mortality. Anxiety disorders are less well studied, but robust epidemiological and clinical evidence shows that anxiety disorders play an equally important role. Biological theories of the interactions between anxiety and IBS, CVD and chronic pain are presented. Available data suggest that anxiety disorders in medically ill patients should not be ignored and could be considered conjointly with depression when developing strategies for screening and intervention, particularly in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging data offer a strong argument for the role of anxiety in medical illness and suggest that anxiety disorders rival depression in terms of risk, comorbidity and outcome. Research programs designed to advance our understanding of the impact of anxiety disorders on medical illness are needed to develop evidence-based approaches to improving patient care.

Major depression after breast cancer: a review of epidemiology and treatment

OBJECTIVE

While many breast cancer patients experience "normal" distress, there is a subset who experience clinically significant depression. We examined the current knowledge about the prevalence, impact and treatment of major depression in women with breast cancer.

METHOD

We reviewed the evidence for the prevalence of depression in women with breast cancer from the last 20 years and summarized the medical literature on the pharmacology and psychotherapy of depression in this population.

RESULTS

Despite evidence that depression significantly impacts quality of life in breast cancer patients, few studies focus on the epidemiology and treatment of major depression. Treatment studies have focused on distress and mixed depressive states, with resulting lack of replicable studies showing treatment efficacy. Potential biological and psychosocial determinants of major depression following breast cancer are discussed in a proposed model. The need for further research on the epidemiology and treatment of major depression in this population is proposed.

CONCLUSION

Major depression is a frequent but underrecognized and undertreated condition among breast cancer patients, which causes amplification of physical symptoms, increased functional impairment and poor treatment adherence. More research on the epidemiology and treatment of major depression in this population is needed.

Clinical experience of the use of a pharmacological treatment algorithm for major depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer

The objective of this study was to describe the applicability and the dropout of the pharmacological treatment algorithm for major depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer. Psychiatrists treated major depressive disorder in advanced cancer patients on the basis of the algorithm. For discussing the problems related to the algorithm, we reviewed the reasons for the non-application of the algorithm and the reasons for dropout of patients within a week of initiation of treatment. The algorithm was applied in 54 of 59 cases (applicability rate, 92%). The reasons for the non-application of the algorithm were as follows: the need to add a benzodiazepine to an antidepressant in 4 cases and the need to choose alprazolam despite the depression being moderate in severity, in order to obtain a rapid onset action and reduce anxiety in a patient with short prognosis. Nineteen of the 55 patients dropped out within a week of initiation of treatment based on the algorithm. Delirium was the most frequent reason for dropout. The applicability rate was high, but several problems were identified, including those related to the combination of antidepressants and benzodiazepines, pharmacological treatment of depression in patients with short prognosis, and delirium due to antidepressants.

Depressive und Angststörungen bei somatischen Krankheiten

Depressiv-ängstliche Störungen sind bei den unterschiedlichen somatischen Erkrankungen häufig. Sie sind nicht nur als Reaktion auf die Situation der Erkrankung zu verstehen, sondern in ein komplexes Bedingungsgefüge eingebettet. Sie sind besonders häufig bei Erkrankungen, die das Zentralnervensystem oder endokrine Regulationssysteme direkt betreffen. Es besteht ein enger Zusammenhang zur Chronizität, Schwere und Prognose der Erkrankung. Eigenständige Effekte von diversen pharmakologischen Substanzgruppen sind wahrscheinlich.