Distinguishing and treating demoralization syndrome in cancer: A review.

IMPORTANCE: Demoralization, characterized by a persistent inability to cope, as well as helplessness, hopelessness, and despair, is highly prevalent in oncology, with between 36% to 52% of patients exhibiting demoralization syndrome. Given established evidence linking demoralization in patients with cancer to physical symptom burden, quality of life, sleep disturbance, and suicidality, assessment and treatment of demoralization syndrome is critical for optimizing clinical and psychosocial outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: The term "demoralization" is highly relevant to the care of patients with cancer facing life-limiting illnesses. Indeed, demoralization can be conceptualized as a feeling state characterized by the perception of being unable to cope with some pressing problems and/or of lack of adequate support from others. Despite a considerable overlap in symptoms, demoralization and depression should be regarded as distinct and independent clinical syndromes. Patients who are demoralized but not clinically depressed often describe a sense of subjective incompetence and do not report anhedonia (i.e., loss of interest and inability to enjoy things). Although the definition of demoralization is now included as a distinct syndrome in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11, it has been neglected by the current U.S. official nosology in psychiatry, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). As such, demoralization syndrome may be under- or misdiagnosed and treated ineffectively in the oncology setting, potentially prolonging suffering and influencing cancer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Optimization of methods to diagnose and assess demoralization syndrome is critical to underpin rigorous studies evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapeutic and pharmacological interventions for patients with cancer experiencing demoralization. Our review supports the use of specific diagnostic criteria for demoralization in cancer patients, introduces methodological considerations relevant to treatment studies, and presents a novel measurement approach to the assessment of demoralization severity with the Clinical Interview for Demoralization (CIDE).

PANSS Individual Item and Marder Dimension Analyses From a Pivotal Trial of RBP-7000 (Monthly Extended-Release Risperidone) in Schizophrenia Patients.

Background: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) data from a pivotal phase 3 study in participants with schizophrenia of RBP-7000, a recently marketed long-acting subcutaneous injectable risperidone formulation, were examined to determine if dose-response relationships existed for different items of the PANSS.Methods: Changes in the 30 PANSS items were analyzed individually and using the 5 factor-analysis-derived dimensions defined by Marder and colleagues. Subgroups of patients who could benefit from the RBP-7000 120 mg dose were investigated.Results: 337 participants were randomized and received study medication (RBP-7000 90 mg n = 111, RBP-7000 120 mg n = 114, placebo n = 112). Dose-dependent responses were observed in items from the study-specified PANSS positive and general psychopathology exploratory subscales. Dose-dependent responses were observed across all 5 Marder dimensions, with the largest effect sizes observed with the 120 mg dose in the uncontrolled hostility/excitement (UHE) and anxiety/depression dimensions. Participants with baseline UHE dimension scores ≥ 9 demonstrated greater improvement in PANSS total score at the 120 mg dose compared to the 90 mg dose.Conclusions: RBP-7000 demonstrated efficacy across both the primary and exploratory PANSS study endpoints and the post hoc Marder dimensions. Schizophrenia patients with higher baseline Marder UHE scores may benefit from initiation of treatment at the 120 mg dose.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02109562.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy in lamotrigine randomized-controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nonrandomized studies of the relationship of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) with sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) may be susceptible to confounding by tonic-clonic seizure frequency, polypharmacy, and other potential risk factors for SUDEP. We evaluated the risk of SUDEP with lamotrigine (LTG) compared to active comparators and placebo in randomized controlled clinical trials conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) between 1984 and 2009. METHODS: Among 7,774 subjects in 42 randomized clinical trials, there were 39 all-cause deaths. Ten deaths occurred >2 weeks after discontinuation of study medication and were excluded. Narrative summaries of deaths were independently reviewed by three clinical experts (TT, LH, DF), who were blinded to randomized treatment arm. The risk of definite or probable SUDEP was compared between treatment arms for each trial type (placebo-controlled, active-comparator, crossover), using exact statistical methods. KEY FINDINGS: Of 29 on-treatment deaths, eight were definite/probable SUDEP, four were possible SUDEP, and 17 were non-SUDEP. The overall, unadjusted rate of definite/probable SUDEP for LTG was 2.2 events per 1,000-patient years (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.70-5.4). The odds ratios (OR) for on-treatment, definite/probable SUDEP in LTG arms relative to comparator arms, adjusted for length of exposure and trial, were the following: placebo-controlled, OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.00-3.14; p = 0.26); active-comparator, OR 2.18 (95% CI 0.17-117; p = 0.89); and placebo-controlled cross-over, OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.00-42.2; p = 1.0). SIGNIFICANCE: There was no statistically significant difference in rate of SUDEP between LTG and comparator groups. However, the CIs were wide and a clinically important effect cannot be excluded.

Lamotrigine in the acute treatment of bipolar depression: results of five double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of lamotrigine as maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder (BD), particularly for delaying depressive episodes, is well established, but its efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression is less clear. This paper reports the results of five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of lamotrigine monotherapy for the acute treatment of bipolar depression. METHODS: Adult subjects with bipolar I or II disorder experiencing a depressive episode were randomized to placebo or lamotrigine monotherapy (after titration, at a fixed dose of 50 mg or 200 mg daily in Study 1; a flexible dose of 100-400 mg daily in Study 2; or a fixed dose of 200 mg daily in Studies 3, 4 and 5) for 7-10 weeks. RESULTS: Lamotrigine did not differ significantly from placebo on primary efficacy endpoints [17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Studies 1 and 2; Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Studies 3, 4 and 5]. In Study 1, lamotrigine significantly separated from placebo on some secondary measures of efficacy, including the MADRS, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and the CGI-Improvement (CGI-I), but seldom differed on secondary efficacy endpoints for the other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine monotherapy did not demonstrate efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression in four out of five placebo-controlled clinical studies. Lamotrigine was well tolerated in the acute treatment of bipolar depression.

A pooled analysis of 2 placebo-controlled 18-month trials of lamotrigine and lithium maintenance in bipolar I disorder.

BACKGROUND: Two clinical trials, prospectively designed for combined analysis, compared placebo, lithium, and lamotrigine for treatment of bipolar I disorder in recently depressed or manic patients. METHOD: 1315 bipolar I patients (DSM-IV) enrolled in the initial open-label phase, and 638 were stabilized and randomly assigned to 18 months of double-blind monotherapy with lamotrigine (N = 280; 50-400 mg/day fixed dose or 100-400 mg/day flexible dose), lithium (N = 167; serum level of 0.8-1.1 mEq/L), or placebo (N = 191). The primary endpoint was time from randomization to intervention for a mood episode. Data were gathered from August 1997 to August 2001. RESULTS: Lamotrigine and lithium were superior to placebo for time to intervention for any mood episode (median survival: placebo, 86 days [95% CI = 58 to 121]; lithium, 184 days [95% CI = 119 to not calculable]; lamotrigine, 197 days [95% CI = 144 to 388]). Lamotrigine was superior to placebo for time to intervention for depression (median survival: placebo, 270 days [95% CI = 138 to not calculable]; lithium, median not calculable; lamotrigine, median not calculable). Lithium and lamotrigine were superior to placebo for time to intervention for mania (median survival not calculable for any group). Results of additional analyses adjusted for index mood were similar; however, only lithium was superior to placebo for intervention for mania. There was no evidence that either active treatment caused affective switch. Adverse event analysis indicated more diarrhea (19% vs. 7%, p <.05) and tremor (15% vs. 4%, p <.05) in lithium-treated patients compared with lamotrigine-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lamotrigine and lithium stabilized mood by delaying the time to treatment for a mood episode. Lamotrigine was effective against depression and mania, with more robust activity against depression. Lithium was effective against mania.

Safety and tolerability of lamotrigine for bipolar disorder.

Tolerability and safety are important considerations in optimising pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder. This paper reviews the tolerability and safety of lamotrigine, an anticonvulsant recommended in the 2002 American Psychiatric Association guidelines as a first-line treatment for acute depression in bipolar disorder and one of several options for maintenance therapy. This paper reviews the tolerability and safety of lamotrigine using data available from a large programme of eight placebo-controlled clinical trials of lamotrigine enrolling a total of nearly 1800 patients with bipolar disorder. This review is the first to collate all the safety information from these clinical trials, including data from four unpublished studies. The results these trials in which 827 patients with bipolar disorder were given lamotrigine as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for up to 18 months for a total of 280 patient-years of exposure demonstrated that lamotrigine is well-tolerated with an adverse-event profile generally comparable with that of placebo. The most common adverse event with lamotrigine was headache. Lamotrigine did not appear to destabilise mood and was not associated with sexual adverse effects, weight gain, or withdrawal symptoms. Few patients experienced serious adverse events with lamotrigine, and the incidence of withdrawals because of adverse events was low. Serious rash occurred rarely (0.1% incidence) in the clinical development programme including both controlled and uncontrolled clinical trials. These findings - considered in the context of data showing lamotrigine to be effective for bipolar depression - establish lamotrigine as a well-tolerated addition to the psychotropic armamentarium.

Competence to consent to research among long-stay inpatients with chronic schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Questions have been posed about the competence of persons with serious mental illness to consent to participate in clinical research. This study compared competence-related abilities of hospitalized persons with schizophrenia with those of a comparison sample of persons from the community who had never had a psychiatric hospitalization. METHODS: The study participants were administered the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), a structured instrument designed to aid in the assessment of competence to consent to clinical research. The scores of 27 persons who met DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia who were long-stay patients on a state hospital research ward were compared with those of 24 individuals from the community who were of similar age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the patients and the community sample on three measures of competence-related abilities: understanding, reasoning, and appreciation. Degree of psychopathology and cognitive functioning were significantly negatively correlated with understanding and appreciation among the patients with schizophrenia. Length of hospitalization was significantly negatively correlated with all measures of decision-making capacities. CONCLUSIONS: The generally poor performance of the long-stay patients with chronic schizophrenia highlights the difficulties this group is likely to encounter in providing consent to research. However, variation across the sample points to the need for individualized assessment and for validated techniques for facilitating decision making in the face of decisional impairments.

Bupropion SR vs. placebo for weight loss in obese patients with depressive symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of bupropion sustained-release (bupropion SR) in reducing weight and depressive symptoms in obese adults. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Obese adults (body mass index, 30 to 44 kg/m(2)) not currently meeting criteria for major depression but with depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory score 10-30) received bupropion SR 300 mg/d or placebo for 26 weeks with a 500 kcal/d-deficit diet. Patients who lost <5% of baseline weight at week 12 had bupropion SR dosage or placebo increased to 400 mg/d in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The bupropion SR group (n = 193) lost an average of 4.4 kg (4.6% of baseline weight) vs. 1.7 kg (1.8% of baseline weight) on placebo (n = 191, p < 0.001, last-observation-carried-forward analysis). More patients in the bupropion SR group than in the placebo group (40% vs. 16% of intent-to-treat sample, 50% vs. 28% of completers, respectively) lost at least 5% of baseline weight (p < 0.05 at week 4, p < 0.001 at weeks 6 to 26). The percentage of patients reporting > or =50% decrease in depressive symptoms did not differ between groups, but depressive symptoms improved more with bupropion SR than with placebo among patients with a history of major depression (p < 0.05, weeks 4 to 26). In the sample as a whole, improvement in depressive symptoms was related to weight loss of > or =5% regardless of treatment (p < 0.0001). Bupropion SR was well-tolerated. DISCUSSION: Bupropion SR in combination with a 500 kcal/d-deficit diet facilitated weight loss. Weight loss of > or =5% may improve mood in obese patients with depressive symptoms.

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of sustained-release bupropion for smoking cessation.

Sustained-release bupropion (bupropion SR) is a unique, non-nicotine smoking cessation aid that is hypothesised to act upon neurological pathways involved in nicotine dependence. Pharmacokinetic and metabolism studies reveal that bupropion SR is metabolised by multiple pathways with no single pathway predominating. When one pathway is inhibited, others are available to compensate. Therefore, only a few clinically relevant drug-drug interactions involving bupropion SR have been observed, although the potential for interactions exists, as with any extensively metabolised drug. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of data from patients receiving daily oral doses of 100mg, 150mg, or 300mg reveal that the anti-smoking efficacy of bupropion SR is directly related to dose. The incidences of dry mouth and insomnia were directly related to bupropion plasma concentrations while the incidence of anxiety was inversely proportional to bupropion plasma concentrations. To maximise efficacy (with an acceptable safety profile), the optimal daily dose for the majority of patients is 300mg.

Prevalence of sexual dysfunction among newer antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction commonly occurs during antidepressant treatment. However, the reported rates of sexual dysfunction vary across antidepressants and are typically underreported in product literature. The objectives of this study were (1) to estimate the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among patients taking newer antidepressants (bupropion immediate release [IR], bupropion sustained release [SR], citalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, and venlafaxine extended release [XR]) and (2) to compare physician-perceived with patient-reported prevalence rates of antidepressant-associated sexual dysfunction. METHOD: This cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in 1101 U.S. primary care clinics. Adult outpatients (4534 women and 1763 men) receiving antidepressant monotherapy were enrolled. The prevalence of sexual dysfunction was measured using the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire. RESULTS: In the overall population, bupropion IR (22%) and SR (25%) and nefazodone (28%) were associated with the lowest risk for sexual dysfunction, whereas selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, mirtazapine, and venlafaxine XR were associated with higher rates (36%-43%). In a prospectively defined subpopulation unlikely to have predisposing factors for sexual dysfunction, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction ranged from 7% to 30%, with the odds of having sexual dysfunction 4 to 6 times greater with SSRIs or venlafaxine XR than with bupropion SR. Physicians consistently underestimated the prevalence of antidepressant-associated sexual dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Ours is the first study to assess sexual dysfunction across the newer antidepressants using consistent methodology and a validated rating scale. Overall, SSRIs and venlafaxine XR were associated with higher rates of sexual dysfunction than bupropion or nefazodone. Because antidepressant-associated sexual dysfunction is considerably underestimated by physicians, greater recognition and education are imperative when prescribing antidepressant treatment.

Effect on body weight of bupropion sustained-release in patients with major depression treated for 52 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Short-term studies have demonstrated a modest weight-reducing to weight-neutral effect among patients receiving bupropion sustained-release (SR) for the treatment of depression. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to evaluate the long-term effects of bupropion SR on body weight in patients with depression. METHODS: This analysis was conducted within a long-term relapse-prevention study in patients with major depression. Those whose depression had responded to open-label treatment with bupropion SR were randomized to 44 weeks of double-blind treatment with bupropion SR 300 mg/d or placebo. Patients were categorized by body mass index (BMI) as follows: BMI < 22, BMI 22 to 26, BMI > or = 27, and BMI > or = 30. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled in the double-blind phase of the study, 210 receiving bupropion SR and 213 receiving placebo. At the end of the open-label phase, the following mean weight losses were seen in the 4 BMI groups: BMI < 22, 0.5 kg; BMI 22 to 26, 1.1 kg; and BMI > or = 27 and BMI > or = 30, 1.8 kg each. At the end of double-blind treatment, mean change-from-baseline weights were as follows: BMI < 22, -0.1 kg; BMI 22 to 26, -0.6 kg; BMI > or = 27, -1.4 kg; and BMI > or = 30, -2.4 kg. The rate of change in body weight during the double-blind phase was statistically significant compared with baseline BMI (P < 0.001, analysis of covariance). CONCLUSIONS: Modest mean weight losses that increased with increasing baseline body weight were observed with long-term bupropion SR treatment. The findings of this analysis suggest that bupropion SR may be an appropriate therapeutic option in normal-weight or overweight patients with depression who are concerned about weight gain.