scholarly journals Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of methylphenidate for the treatment of depression in SSRI-treated cancer patients receiving palliative care

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (11) ◽  
pp. 1763-1769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Sullivan ◽  
Solange Mongoue-Tchokote ◽  
Motomi Mori ◽  
Elizabeth Goy ◽  
Linda Ganzini
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Treatment Of Depression

Economic evaluation of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous ketamine in the management of chronic cancer pain

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikki McCaffrey ◽  
Thomas Flint ◽  
Billingsley Kaambwa ◽  
Belinda Fazekas ◽  
Debra Rowett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cost

Background: Treating chronic, uncontrolled, cancer pain with subcutaneous ketamine in patients unresponsive to opioids and co-analgesics remains controversial, especially in light of recent evidence demonstrating ketamine does not have net clinical benefit in this setting. Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous ketamine versus placebo in this patient population. Design and setting: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the Australian Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative’s randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ketamine was conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. Mean costs and outcomes were estimated from participant-level data over 5 days including positive response, health-related quality of life (HrQOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Palliative Care (FACIT-Pal), ketamine costs, medication usage and in-patient stays. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in responder rates, but higher toxicity and worse HrQOL for ketamine participants (mean change −3.10 (standard error (SE) 1.76), ketamine n = 93; 4.53 (SE 1.38), placebo n = 92). Estimated total mean costs were AU$706 higher per ketamine participant (AU$6608) compared with placebo (AU$5902), attributable to the cost of higher in-patient costs as well as costs of ketamine administration. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses accounting for different medication use costing methods and removal of cost outliers. Conclusion: The findings suggest subcutaneous ketamine in conjunction with opioids and standard adjuvant therapy is neither an effective nor cost-effective treatment for refractory pain in advanced cancer patients.

Pharmacological Treatment of Depression in Cancer Patients

1996 ◽  
Vol 169 (4) ◽  
pp. 440-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kees Van Heeringen ◽  
Milana Zivkov
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Treatment Of Depression ◽  
Hamilton Rating Scale

BackgroundDepression has a reported mean prevalence of 24% in patients diagnosed with cancer. However, little systematic research on the efficacy of antidepressants in patients with cancer has been performed.MethodThe efficacy and safety of mianserin were studied in 55 depressed women with breast cancer (stage I or II and without known metastases), in a randomised, double-blind, six-week, placebo-controlled study.ResultsStatistically significant differences in the decrease in score from baseline on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the number of responders, favouring mianserin, were present after 28 and 42 days of treatment Significantly more placebo-treated patients prematurely terminated the study due to lack of efficacy while the safety profile of mianserin was similar to that of placebo.ConclusionsTreatment with mianserin resulted in a significant improvement in depressive symptoms in cancer patients, and was well tolerated.

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Ramosetron Injections in the Treatment of Cisplatin-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

2002 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
K Noda ◽  
M Ikeda ◽  
O Yoshida ◽  
S Yano ◽  
T Taguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Efficacy Analysis

A phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed to examine the safety and efficacy of ramosetron in cancer patients with cisplatin-induced nausea/vomiting. Patients were divided into two groups: group R received 0.3 mg ramosetron intravenously and group P received placebo. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, 44 in each group; 84 (43 in group R, 41 in group P) were included in the clinical efficacy analysis and 86 (44 in group R, 42 in group P) in the safety analysis. Ramosetron was significantly more clinically effective than placebo against nausea, vomiting and anorexia; 65.1% of patients in group R experienced no vomiting in the first 6 h of observation compared with 7.3% of those receiving placebo. No serious adverse reactions or significant differences in safety were observed between the groups. Based on these results, ramosetron injection is effective in the treatment of cisplatin-induced nausea/vomiting and its clinical usefulness is demonstrated here.

Impact of the preoperative use of synbiotics in colorectal cancer patients: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Nutrition ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 40-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Brandão Polakowski ◽  
Massakazu Kato ◽  
Vinicius Basso Preti ◽  
Maria Eliana Madalozzo Schieferdecker ◽  
Antonio Carlos Ligocki Campos
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document