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).

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.

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.

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.