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.
BACKGROUND: Incidence of cancer-related fatigue (CRF), which can persist 5 to 10 years, is nearly 85% in cancer patients. It severely affects the quality of life and is strongly associated with poor prognosis. As clinical trial data on CRF treated with methylphenidate and ginseng, two potential medicines, has been accumulating, an updated meta-analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of the two medicines in CRF.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials that investigated methylphenidate or ginseng in the treatment of CRF were identified through a literature search. The primary outcome was CRF relief. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to analyze the effect.
RESULTS: Eight studies on methylphenidate were included and the pooled SMD was 0.18 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.00 to 0.35, P=0.05]. Five studies on ginseng were included and the SMD was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17-0.46, P<0.0001). Results of network meta-analysis showed that the order was ginseng, methylphenidate, placebo from high efficacy to low and ginseng was significantly better than methylphenidate (SMD =0.23, 95% CI: 0.01-0.45). Incidences of insomnia and nausea caused by ginseng were significantly lower than those caused by methylphenidate (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Both methylphenidate and ginseng can significantly ameliorate CRF. Ginseng may be superior to methylphenidate because ginseng may be more effective and might cause less adverse events. Head-to-head trials with fixed protocol are warranted to identify the optimal medical strategy.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS: For this review update we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo via Ovid to 12 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled (RCTs) trials that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MK, JD) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a risk of bias assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this updated review. Six were from the original version of the review, and two more were added when the search was updated. Nineteen further studies were assessed as part of this update but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the eight included studies, four studies investigated "prevention" of cognitive problems (during radiotherapy and follow-up) and four studies investigated "amelioration" (interventions to treat cognitive impairment as a late complication of radiotherapy). There were five pharmacological studies (two studies on prevention and three in amelioration) and three non-pharmacological studies (two on prevention and one in amelioration). Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Studies in early radiotherapy treatment phase (five studies) Pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" were designed to prevent or ameliorate cognitive deficits and included drugs used in dementia (memantine) and fatigue (d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride). Non-pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" included a ketogenic diet and a two-week cognitive rehabilitation and problem-solving programme. In the memantine study, the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The study of a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet found no effect, although a lower than expected calorie intake in the control group complicates interpretation of the results. The study investigating the utility of a rehabilitation program did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Studies in delayed radiation or late effect phase (four studies) The "amelioration" pharmacological studies to treat cognitive complications of radiotherapy included drugs used in dementia (donepezil) or psychostimulants (methylphenidate and modafinil). Non-pharmacological measures included cognitive rehabilitation and problem solving (Goal Management Training). These studies included patients with cognitive problems at entry who had "stable" brain cancer. The donepezil study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall cognitive performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. A study comparing methylphenidate with modafinil found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. Another study comparing two different doses of modafinil combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The Goal Management Training study suggested a benefit of the intervention, a behavioural intervention that combined mindfulness and strategy training, on executive function and processing speed. There were a number of limitations across studies and few were without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, limited additional evidence was found for the treatment or amelioration of cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. As concluded in the original review, there is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil, methylphenidate and modafinil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation; patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of these studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher certainty of evidence. There is evidence from only a single small study to support non-pharmacological interventions in the amelioration of cognitive deficits. Further research is required.
PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom among patients with cancer. The efficacy of placebo, however, was never the main objective of any meta-analysis. Predicting the efficacy of placebo may facilitate researchers in designing future clinical trials for the treatment of CRF.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review searching for prospective clinical trials comparing any treatment versus placebo for the treatment of CRF. We included studies that enrolled patients with any primary site of neoplasia and any stage of cancer. We excluded all studies that assessed fatigue related to any treatment. The primary endpoint of this study is the mean effect of placebo on fatigue according to the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness (FACIT-F) and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) scales. The secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients who reported improvement in fatigue (response rate).
RESULTS: We found 520 studies, and 29 studies with 3758 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Placebo had a mean effect of + 4.88 (95%CI + 2.45 to + 7.29) using the FACIT-F scale, although it was statistically worse than the interventions studied (p = 0.005). Using the BFI scale, placebo had an average effect of + 0.64 (95%CI + 0.02 to + 1.30), although it was also worse than the other interventions studied (p = 0.002). In terms of the response rate, 29% (95%CI 25-32%) of patients taking a placebo reported a significant improvement in CRF compared with 36% of patients treated with other interventions (p = 0.030).
CONCLUSIONS: Placebo treatments had a significant effect on CRF, and predicting these effects may help design future studies for CRF.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is recognized as a common symptom experienced by cancer survivors which impacts on quality of life (QoL) and day-to-day activities. One of the treatment options is the use of psychostimulants but the evidence supporting its use remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the level of evidence of psychostimulants' effect on the management of cognitive impairment in adult cancer survivors.
METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL) and reference lists of relevant reviews were searched from inception to December 2017, with no language restrictions applied. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the effect of psychostimulants on cognitive impairment among cancer patients with no primary or secondary brain tumor or brain radiation, were included. The primary outcome was cognitive function changes, whereas secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and QoL.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included: three studies investigating methylphenidate and three modafinil, with a total of 244 and 146 patients, respectively. Due to important differences in methodologies between studies, a meta-analysis was assumed inappropriate for the primary outcome. A narrative synthesis was performed. One study using methylphenidate and two using modafinil demonstrated improvements in some cognitive functions as measured by objective cognitive assessment tests. Psychostimulants did not improve QoL and were not associated with more AEs.
CONCLUSION: To date, limited evidence is available to estimate the usefulness (or lack) of psychostimulants on cognitive function in this population.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine whether, compared with control interventions, pharmacologic interventions reduce the severity of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (hsct).
METHODS: For a systematic review, we searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, cinahl, and Psychinfo for randomized trials of systemic pharmacologic interventions for the management of fatigue in patients with cancer or recipients of hsct. Two authors independently identified studies and abstracted data. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was fatigue severity measured using various fatigue scales. Data were synthesized using random-effects models.
RESULTS: In the 117 included trials (19,819 patients), the pharmacologic agents used were erythropoietins (
CONCLUSIONS: Erythropoietin and methylphenidate significantly reduced fatigue severity in patients with cancer and in recipients of hsct. Concerns about the safety of those agents might limit their usefulness. Future research should identify effective interventions for fatigue that have minimal adverse effects.
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.
