9116 Background: Hot flashes affect 75 % to 90 % of women transitioning to menopause and are a major cause of morbidity among breast cancer survivors. Levetiracetam, a popular anticonvulsant, is a centrally active agent that anecdotally appeared to reduce hot flashes in clinical practice. This phase II trial sought to evaluate the efficacy of levetiracetam in reducing hot flashes among women with a history of breast cancer or women who did not wish to take estrogen therapy for fear of an increased risk of breast cancer. Methods: Women who were experiencing bothersome hot flashes (≥ 14 times per week, for ≥ 1 month) were eligible. A single arm pilot study design based on previous work was used with a planned sample size of 30 patients. The patients did not receive any study medication during the first week (baseline week). At the beginning of the second week, patients were started on levetiracetam (500 mg), and were to increase the dose by 500 mg each week to a goal of 1,000 mg twice daily. Hot flash diaries were completed daily. The primary endpoint was hot flash score (frequency times average severity). The change from week 1 (baseline) to week 5, the last treatment week, was analyzed by paired t-test and related Wilcoxon procedures. Results: A total of 30 women were enrolled onto this study in eight months. All patients were eligible. 19 women completed all 4 weeks of the study treatment and provided complete data. After treatment with levetiracetam for 4 weeks, mean hot flash scores were reduced by 57% (95% CI 39%-75%), while mean hot flash frequencies were reduced by 53% (95% CI 38%-68%), reductions being greater than what would be expected with a placebo. There were significant improvements, compared to baseline week data, in sweating, hot flash distress, and satisfaction with hot flash control. Eight subjects stopped the study drug due to treatment related adverse events (grade I/II), with the most frequently reported being somnolence, fatigue and dizziness. Conclusions: While levetiracetam appears to be a promising therapy for the treatment of hot flashes, further study is needed to better substantiate the toxicity and efficacy of this drug before it can be more definitively recommended for use in clinical practice. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Pilot evaluation of paroxetine for alleviation of hot flashes in men
PURPOSE: Previous double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that both corticosteroids and progestational agents do partially alleviate cancer anorexia/cachexia. Pilot information suggested that an anabolic corticosteroid might also improve appetites in patients with cancer anorexia/cachexia. The current trial was developed to compare and contrast a progestational agent, a corticosteroid, and an anabolic corticosteroid for the treatment of cancer anorexia/cachexia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients suffering from cancer anorexia/cachexia were randomized to receive either dexamethasone 0.75 mg qid, megestrol acetate 800 mg orally every day, or fluoxymesterone 10 mg orally bid. Patients were observed at monthly intervals to evaluate weight changes and drug toxicity. Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at monthly intervals to evaluate appetites and drug toxicities. RESULTS: Fluoxymesterone resulted in significantly less appetite enhancement and did not have a favorable toxicity profile. Megestrol acetate and dexamethasone caused a similar degree of appetite enhancement and similar changes in nonfluid weight status, with nonsignificant trends favoring megestrol acetate for both of these parameters. Dexamethasone was observed to have more corticosteroid-type toxicity and a higher rate of drug discontinuation because of toxicity and/or patient refusal than megestrol acetate (36% v 25%; P = .03). Megestrol acetate had a higher rate of deep venous thrombosis than dexamethasone (5% v 1%; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Whereas fluoxymesterone clearly seems to be an inferior choice for treating cancer anorexia/cachexia, megestrol acetate and dexamethasone have similar appetite stimulating efficacy but differing toxicity profiles.