Pilot evaluation of citalopram for the treatment of hot flashes in women with inadequate benefit from venlafaxine.

BACKGROUND: While newer antidepressants, such as venlafaxine and paroxetine, substantially decrease hot flashes, there is no published information with regards to whether a different antidepressant will be effective when one antidepressant does not adequately relieve hot flashes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this trial was to provide pilot information with regards to whether citalopram would effectively reduce hot flashes in patients who did not receive adequate enough hot flash reduction with venlafaxine. DESIGN: This was a prospective pilot trial. MEASUREMENTS: Validated patient-completed hot flash diary questionnaires were utilized for measuring hot flashes. SUBJECTS: Thirty patients were recruited to this trial, 22 of whom were fully evaluable. RESULTS: Compared to a baseline week, hot flash scores were reduced by 53% 4 weeks later. The citalopram appeared to be well tolerated with many quality-of-life and potential toxicity symptoms much improved compared to the baseline week. At the end of the 4-week treatment, 19 patients (63% of patients entering the study and 86% of the patient completing the study treatment) chose to continue to use citalopram. CONCLUSION: This pilot information supports the hypothesis that citalopram will reduce hot flashes in patients with inadequate hot flash relief while taking venlafaxine.

Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial.

BACKGROUND: Shark cartilage has been a popular complementary or alternative medicine intervention. The basis for this popularity is the claim that sharks rarely get cancer because of the high proportion of cartilage in the shark's body. However, early studies were equivocal. Therefore, a clinical trial was conducted to look at the impact of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer. The primary goal of this trial was to determine whether a shark cartilage product improved overall survival for patients with advanced cancer who were getting standard care. Secondary research goals were to evaluate toxicities, tolerability, and quality of life associated with this shark cartilage product. METHODS: The study was a two-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Patients with incurable breast or colorectal carcinoma had to have good performance status and organ function. Patients could be receiving chemotherapy. Patients were all to receive standard care and then to be randomly selected to receive either a shark cartilage product or an identical-appearing and smelling placebo 3 to 4 times each day. RESULTS: Data on a total of 83 evaluable patients were analyzed. There was no difference in overall survival between patients receiving standard care plus a shark cartilage product versus standard care plus placebo. Likewise, there was no suggestion of improvement in quality of life for patients receiving the shark cartilage, compared with those receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: This trial was unable to demonstrate any suggestion of efficacy for this shark cartilage product in patients with advanced cancer.