Dataset Information

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate for the treatment of depression in SSRI-treated cancer patients receiving palliative care.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine the effectiveness of methylphenidate for depression treatment in patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN:An 18-day randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of methylphenidate for treatment of depression in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-treated patients with advanced cancer in hospice or receiving palliative care. The primary outcome was depression remission, defined as a ?50% reduction in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. RESULTS:Among 47 enrolled participants, 34 were randomized. At study day 18, 85% of the methylphenidate and 60% of the placebo group were in depression remission (P = .22). Mean time to depression remission was 10.3 days [standard error (SE) 1.8] in the methylphenidate and 8.1 (SE 1.3) in the placebo group (P = .48). The mean baseline score for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was 10.4 in each group and decreased by 3.6 (SE 1.1) in the methylphenidate and 2.3 (SE 1.2) in the placebo group (P = .51) by day 18. Once in remission, 1 methylphenidate and 5 placebo participants relapsed to depression (P = .18). There was no difference in mortality between the groups during the trial. Trial results were limited by small sample size attributed to difficulties in recruiting terminally ill patients. CONCLUSIONS:This trial failed to demonstrate that methylphenidate treatment in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-treated patients had a significant effect on depression remission in patients with advanced cancer. This study underscores the difficulties in conducting trials for symptom management in patients with shortened life expectancy.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5509522 | biostudies-other | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate for the treatment of depression in SSRI-treated cancer patients receiving palliative care.

Sullivan Donald R DR Mongoue-Tchokote Solange S Mori Motomi M Goy Elizabeth E Ganzini Linda L

Psycho-oncology 20160812 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effectiveness of methylphenidate for depression treatment in patients with advanced cancer.<h4>Design</h4>An 18-day randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of methylphenidate for treatment of depression in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-treated patients with advanced cancer in hospice or receiving palliative care. The primary outcome was depression remission, defined as a ≥50% reduction in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Ra ...[more]

PMID: 27429350

Similar Datasets

Project description:Disturbance in sleep quality is a symptom of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Bipolar Disorder (BD) and thus improving quality of sleep is an important aspect of successful treatment. Here, a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study examined the effect of olanzapine (an atypical antipsychotic) augmentation therapy on sleep architecture, specifically slow wave sleep (SWS), in the treatment of depression. The effect of olanzapine augmentation therapy on other features of sleep (e.g., sleep continuity) and depression (e.g., illness severity and cognitive function) were also determined.Patients currently experiencing a major depressive episode and who were on a stable medication were included. Sleep architecture was measured by overnight ambulatory polysomnography. Illness severity was determined using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Cognitive function was examined using Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): Spatial Working Memory (SWM), Spatial Span (SSP), and Reaction Time (RTI) tasks. Polysomnographs, clinical measures and cognitive tests were administered at baseline, after 2-4 days of treatment and after 28-31 days of treatment. Twenty-five patients participated in the study (N = 10, N = 15 for placebo and olanzapine treated groups respectively).The primary objective of the study was to assess the objective (polysomnographic) changes in sleep quality, defined as changes in SWS, following olanzapine treatment for depression. Latency to but not duration of SWS was found to significantly differ between olanzapine- and placebo-treated participants (Hedge's g: 0.97, 0.13 respectively). A significant improvement in olanzapine-treated participants over placebo-treated participants was observed in secondary outcome measures, including sleep efficiency, total sleep time, and sleep latency. Secondary objectives assessed the subjective changes in sleep quality parameters and correlated them with measures of illness severity and changes in cognition. MADRS scores were significantly improved in olanzapine-treated participants over time but not more than placebo treatment. There was no significant difference between olanzapine- and placebo-treated participants in SWM, SSP or RTI tasks.Olanzapine augmentation treatment generally did not improve SWS but did improve sleep continuity and depression. Olanzapine may be one of few medications that improve sleep continuity, thus directly targeting symptoms of depression.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00520507.

Project description:IntroductionTreatment options for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are limited. The study was conducted to confirm the clinically effective and safe dose of methylphenidate hydrochloride modified-release (MPH-LA) in adults with ADHD and evaluate the maintenance of effect of MPH-LA.MethodsThe study consisted of three treatment phases. The double-blind dose-confirmation phase: 9-week double-blind period (3-week titration period, 6-week fixed dose) with randomization to MPH-LA 40, 60, or 80 mg/day or placebo. The real-life dose-optimization phase: a 5-week re-titration period to optimal dose; and the double-blind maintenance of effect phase, a 6-month double-blind randomized placebo-controlled maintenance of effect phase. The three co-primary endpoints were change in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV ADHD Rating Scale (DSM-IV ADHD RS) and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) total scores from baseline to end of 9-week confirmation phase and the percentage of treatment failures during the 6-month maintenance of effect phase.Results725 of 863 screened patients were randomized to 40 (N = 181), 60 (N = 182), or 80 mg (N = 181) MPH-LA or placebo (N = 181), and 584 (80.6%) completed. 489 (83.7%) of completers were re-randomized to the double-blinded maintenance of effect phase and 235 (48.1%) of them completed. Improvement from baseline in DSM-IV ADHD RS (P < 0.0001 for all comparisons) and SDS (40 mg, P = 0.0003; 60 mg, P = 0.0176; 80 mg, P < 0.0001) total scores was significantly greater vs. placebo for all MPH-LA doses. Treatment failure rate was significantly lower with MPH-LA (21.3%) versus placebo (49.6%) during the 6-month maintenance of effect phase. Safety profile was consistent with the profile for MPH-LA in children; percentage of serious adverse events was comparable between all MPH-LA arms (1.3%) and placebo (1.5%), while percentage of adverse events was higher in MPH-LA arms.ConclusionMPH-LA provided and maintained significant symptomatic and functional improvement in adult ADHD patients.

Project description:The specific clinical benefit of the homeopathic consultation and of homeopathic remedies in patients with depression has not yet been investigated.To investigate the 1) specific effect of individualized homeopathic Q-potencies compared to placebo and 2) the effect of an extensive homeopathic case taking (case history I) compared to a shorter, rather conventional one (case history II) in the treatment of acute major depression (moderate episode) after six weeks.A randomized, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-armed trial using a 2×2 factorial design with a six-week study duration per patient was performed.A total of 44 from 228 planned patients were randomized (2?1?2?1 randomization: 16 homeopathic Q-potencies/case history I, 7 placebo/case history I, 14 homeopathic Q-potencies/case history II, 7 placebo/case history II). Because of recruitment problems, the study was terminated prior to full recruitment, and was underpowered for the preplanned confirmatory hypothesis testing. Exploratory data analyses showed heterogeneous and inconclusive results with large variance in the sample. The mean difference for the Hamilton-D after 6 weeks was 2.0 (95%CI -1.2;5.2) for Q-potencies vs. placebo and -3.1 (-5.9;-0.2) for case history I vs. case history II. Overall, no consistent or clinically relevant results across all outcomes between homeopathic Q-potencies versus placebo and homeopathic versus conventional case taking were observed. The frequency of adverse events was comparable for all groups.Although our results are inconclusive, given that recruitment into this trial was very difficult and we had to terminate early, we cannot recommend undertaking a further trial addressing this question in a similar setting. Prof. Dr. Claudia Witt had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01178255. Protocol publication: http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/12/1/43.

Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the extended efficacy, safety, and tolerability of escitalopram relative to placebo in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodsAdolescents (12-17 years) who completed an 8-week randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, placebo-controlled, lead-in study of escitalopram 10-20 mg versus placebo could enroll in a 16-24-week, multisite extension trial; patients maintained the same lead-in randomization (escitalopram or placebo) and dosage (escitalopram 10 or 20 mg/day, or placebo) during the extension. The primary efficacy was Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) change from the lead-in study baseline to treatment week 24 (8-week lead-in study plus 16-week extension); the secondary efficacy was Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score at week 24. All efficacy analyses used the last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach; sensitivity analyses used observed cases (OC) and mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM). Safety was evaluated via adverse event (AE) reports and the clinician-rated Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS).ResultsFollowing lead-in, 165 patients enrolled in the double-blind extension (82 placebo; 83 escitalopram); 40 (48.8%) placebo and 37 (44.6%) escitalopram patients completed treatment. CDRS-R total score improvement was significantly greater for escitalopram than for placebo (p=0.005, LOCF; p=0.014; MMRM). Response rates (CDRS-R ≥ 40% reduction from baseline [adjusted and unadjusted] and CGI-I ≤ 2) were significantly higher for escitalopram than for placebo (LOCF); remission rates (CDRS-R ≤ 28) were 50.6% for escitalopram and 35.7% for placebo (p=0.002). OC analyses were not significantly different between groups. The most frequent escitalopram AEs (≥ 5% and more frequent than placebo) were headache, nausea, insomnia, vomiting, influenza-like symptoms, diarrhea, and urinary tract infection. Most AEs were mild/moderate and not related to the study drug. AEs suggestive of self-harm occurred in 5.7% and 7.1% of placebo and escitalopram patients. Occurrence of suicidal behavior and/or suicidal ideation assessed by C-SSRS was 10.9% (14/128) for placebo and 14.5% (19/131) for escitalopram.ConclusionsExtended use of escitalopram was generally safe and resulted in modest improvement in efficacy in adolescents with MDD.

Dataset Information

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate for the treatment of depression in SSRI-treated cancer patients receiving palliative care.

Publications

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate for the treatment of depression in SSRI-treated cancer patients receiving palliative care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets