Duane, Steven F.

526 Background: Antidepressants do not adequately alleviate all HFs. Based on placebo-controlled data demonstrating that GABA is an alternative therapy for HFs, this trial was initiated to test whether the combination of an antidepressant and GABA was better than GABA alone in PTS with inadequate HF control on an antidepressant alone. Methods: Eligible PTS on antidepressants with bothersome HFs were randomized to two groups. PTS kept a daily HF diary during a baseline wk (while continuing their antidepressant). Following the baseline wk, all PTS were given GABA 300 mg at hs for 3 days, then BID for 3 days, and then TID for 22 days. One group continued their antidepressant while the other group was weaned off it over several days. PTS continued a daily HF diary during this 4-wk period. Efficacy was measured using the mean daily HF number and score; the latter measured by assigning points (1–4, for mild to very severe) to each HF and then adding the points for a given time. The study design provided 80% power to detect a difference in the changes from baseline at 4 wks between the two groups of 1.2 HFs/day, or 3 points/day in HF scores. Results: 115 PTS were randomized and given GABA. PTS continuing their antidepressant reported a 48% mean reduction in HF score after 4 wks, vs 49% for PTS stopping it (p=0.97). Mean HF numbers were reduced 50% and 47%, respectively (p=0.54). 16 other symptoms and quality of life items were measured by PT-completed weekly questionnaires, with the only suggestive changes from baseline between the two arms being more mood troubles after 2 wks of treatment (p=0.06) and more nervousness after 4 wks of treatment (p=0.01) in PTS stopping their antidepressant. Also, a mild temporary increase in dizziness after 1 wk of treatment was observed in the same group (p=0.08) suggestive of an antidepressant withdrawal reaction. Conclusion: This trial failed to provide any evidence that the combination of GABA and an antidepressant decreased HFs any more than did GABA alone in PTS who had inadequate HF control with an antidepressant alone. The 50% reduction in HFs in both arms is commensurate with the efficacy of GABA delineated in other published reports. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9001 Background: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms in people diagnosed with cancer. Ginseng is a popular herb for treatment of this. It has been termed an “adaptogen”, felt to be able to restore balance to the body; its potential anti-fatigue efficacy is supported by animal data. The purpose of this pilot trial was to evaluate three doses of American Ginseng versus placebo for cancer-related fatigue. Methods: Patients with a life expectancy = 6 months and a history of cancer-related fatigue who had been experiencing fatigue = 1 month were eligible. Exclusion criteria included prior use of ginseng, chronic systemic steroids and brain malignancies. Other etiologies for fatigue, such as pain, were also excluded. Participants were randomized to receive, in a double blind manner, placebo, 750 mg/d, 1,000 mg/d or 2,000 mg/d of American Ginseng in BID dosing for 8 weeks. Endpoints included The Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Vitality Subscale of the SF-36 and several numeric analogue questions of perceived benefit; endpoints were measured at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks. Area under the curve (AUC) and change from baseline were calculated. Results: Two hundred eighty two patients (69–72 per arm) were enrolled from 10/21/2005 to 07/05/2006. Available 8-week data are provided in the table below; higher numbers are better. There were no statistically significant differences in any grade of toxicity between active and placebo arms, and an equivalent number of patients discontinued the study due to adverse events in each arm. Conclusion: This randomized pilot trial provided data to suggest that American Ginseng doses of 1000–2000 mg/d may be effective for alleviating cancer related fatigue. Therefore, further study of American Ginseng in cancer survivors appears warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

PurposeFatigue is one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. This trial was developed to evaluate the efficacy of long-acting methylphenidate for improving cancer-related fatigue and to assess its toxicities.Patients and MethodsAdults with cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive methylphenidate (target dose, 54 mg/d) or placebo for 4 weeks. The Brief Fatigue Inventory was the primary outcome measure, while secondary outcome measures included a Symptom Experience Diary (SED), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Vitality Subscale, a linear analog self-assessment, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Subject Global Impression of Change.ResultsIn total, 148 patients were enrolled. Using an area under the serum concentration-time curve analysis, there was no evidence that methylphenidate, as compared with placebo, improved the primary end point of cancer-related fatigue in this patient population (P = .35). Comparisons of secondary end points, including clinically significant changes in quality-of-life variables and cancer-related fatigue change from baseline, were similarly negative. However, a subset analysis suggested that patients with more severe fatigue and/or with more advanced disease did have some fatigue improvement with methylphenidate (eg, in patients with stage III or IV disease, the mean improvement in usual fatigue was 19.7 with methylphenidate v 2.1 with placebo; P = .02). There was a significant difference in self-reported toxicities (SED), with increased levels of nervousness and appetite loss in the methylphenidate arm.ConclusionThis clinical trial was unable to support the primary prestudy hypothesis that the chosen long-acting methylphenidate product would decrease cancer-related fatigue.

Purpose Despite the utility of newer antidepressants for alleviating hot flashes, antidepressants do not work adequately enough in many patients. Gabapentin is a nonhormonal agent that also can reduce hot flashes. No data have been available to address whether the combination of both agents would more effectively alleviate hot flashes, compared with gabapentin alone, in patients with inadequate hot flash control with an antidepressant alone. Patients and Methods This was a randomized trial in which 118 patients with inadequate hot flash control on an antidepressant were randomly assigned to receive both an antidepressant and gabapentin versus being weaned off the antidepressant and receiving gabapentin alone. Patients were observed for 5 weeks (including a baseline week in which patients continued on their current antidepressant without gabapentin) during which time they completed validated daily hot flash diaries. Results Ninety-one patients provided complete data at the 5-week assessment. Regardless of whether or not the antidepressant was continued when gabapentin was started, there was an approximately 50% median reduction in hot flash frequencies (54%; 95% CI, 34% to 70% for combined treatment v 49%; 95% CI, 26% to 58% for gabapentin alone) and scores (56%; 95% CI, 26% to 71% for combined treatment v 60%; 95% CI, 33% to 73% for gabapentin alone). Conclusion Gabapentin seems to decrease hot flashes by approximately 50% in women with inadequate hot flash control who were using an antidepressant. This study saw no significant additional hot flash reduction from continuation of the antidepressant.