Modafinil zur Behandlung der Tumorfatigue: Eine Interventionsstudie

Cancer-related fatigue in hospitalised patients treated for lymphoma and its burden on family caregivers

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in patients with lymphoma and to explore the burden of CRF on the family caregivers (FCs).

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital in China. Patients with lymphoma who received treatment in the in-patient ward of the Haematology Department were consecutively recruited. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to gather information related to the patients' sociodemographic characteristics and perceived CRF and its burden on the FCs. Cochran-Armitage trend analysis and Multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed to determine the association between CRF and the FCs' burden.

RESULTS

Of the 116 cancer patient-FC dyads, about 70% of patients experienced some level of fatigue, while 51% of unpaid family members suffered some degree of depression. The Cochran-Armitage trend analysis showed that the FCs' burden significantly increased with the severity of CRF. Logistic regression indicated that the FCs of the patients reporting fatigue experienced a higher burden in both the unadjusted and adjusted models.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of CRF appeared to be high among patients with lymphoma. It might be important to design innovative health-promoting practices for ameliorating or preventing the impact of fatigue.

Pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour

BACKGROUND

This is the second updated version of the Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2010 and first updated in Issue 5, 2013. People with a primary brain tumour often experience depression, for which drug treatment may be prescribed. However, they are also at high risk of epileptic seizures, cognitive impairment, and fatigue, all of which are potential adverse side effects of antidepressants. The benefit, or harm, of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search to include CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to September 2019. As in the original review, we also handsearched Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, and Journal of Clinical Oncology: for the current update we handsearched the latest three years of articles from these journals (up to November 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a histologically diagnosed primary brain tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No studies met the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no eligible studies evaluating the benefits of any pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified no high-quality studies that investigated the value of pharmacological treatment of depression in people with a primary brain tumour. RCTs and detailed prospective studies are required to inform the effective pharmacological treatment of this common and important complication of brain tumours. Since the last version of this review none of the related new literature has provided additional information to change these conclusions.

Psychiatric considerations in the oncology setting

An aging population and advances in diagnostics and treatment have resulted in a rapidly growing population of people impacted by cancer. People live longer after a cancer diagnosis and tolerate more aggressive treatments than in the past. Younger patients struggle with diversions from the normal developmental milestones in career and relationships, while older patients deal with the dual challenges of aging and cancer. Cancer's transition from likely death to survival has increased interest in its impact on psychosocial issues and quality of life, rather than just longevity. In this article, the authors review the psychiatric diagnosis and management of the mental health issues most often encountered in oncology. Oncology treatment teams, including oncologists, nurses, social workers, and other ancillary staff, are often on the front lines of addressing psychiatric distress and clinical syndromes when psychiatrists are not easily available. The purpose of this review article is to highlight opportunities for nonpsychiatrists to improve identification and treatment of psychosocial distress and psychiatric syndromes and to request formal psychiatric consultation in appropriate situations. Psychotherapeutic, psychopharmacologic, cognitive, and behavioral-oriented interventions, as well as supportive interventions, are discussed for treating patients who are facing challenges during active cancer treatment, survivorship, and at the end of life. This review is not exhaustive but highlights the more common psychosomatic medicine and palliative care scenarios that impact cancer patient care. The importance of recognizing and addressing burnout and compassion fatigue in multidisciplinary professionals who care for those treated for cancer is also discussed given the secondary impact this can have on patient care.

The Use of Modafinil in the Intensive Care Unit

As patients recover from their critical illness, the focus of intensive care unit (ICU) care becomes rehabilitation. Fatigue, excessive daytime somnolence (EDS), and depression can delay their recovery and potentially worsen outcomes. Psychostimulants, particularly modafinil (Provigil), have been shown to alleviate some of these symptoms in various patient populations, and as clinical trials are underway exploring this novel use of the drug, we present a case series of 3 patients in our institution's Thoracic Surgery Intensive Care Unit. Our 3 patients were chosen as a result of their fatigue, EDS, and/or depression, which prolonged their ICU stay and precluded them from participating in physical therapy, an integral component of the rehabilitative process. The patients were given 200 mg of modafinil each morning to increase patient wakefulness, encourage their participation, and enable a more restful sleep during the night. Although the drug was undoubtedly not the sole reason why our patients became more active, the temporal relationship between starting the drug and our patients' clinical improvement makes it likely that it contributed. Based on our observations with these patients, the known effects of modafinil, its safety profile, and the published experiences of others, we believe that modafinil has potential benefits when utilized in some critically ill patients and that the consequences of delayed patient recovery and a prolonged ICU stay may outweigh the risks of potential modafinil side effects.

Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of modafinil for fatigue in patients treated with docetaxel-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Modafinil has been reported to benefit a subgroup of patients suffering severe fatigue while undergoing chemotherapy. Docetaxel is associated with fatigue that may lead to premature therapy withdrawal. We investigated whether modafinil could reduce fatigue during docetaxel chemotherapy.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy of modafinil in patients with metastatic prostate or breast cancer undergoing docetaxel chemotherapy (every 21 days; minimum dose 50 mg/m(2)). At the start of their third or subsequent chemotherapy cycle, patients with significant docetaxel-associated fatigue were randomized to receive concurrent modafinil 200 mg/day or placebo for 15 days ("treatment periods" (TP)). Docetaxel was continued for up to four further cycles. Fatigue was evaluated with the fatigue component of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI). The primary endpoint was cumulative MDASI area under the curve (AUC) during the first 7 days of study medication during TP1 and TP2.

RESULTS

Evaluable data were available from 83 patients (65 with prostate cancer). There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms for the primary endpoint (MSADI AUC3-10 35.9 vs 39.6; 95 % confidence interval -8.9, 1.4; P=0.15). Overall toxicity was comparable between treatment groups; however, the incidence of grade ≤ 2 nausea and vomiting was higher in the modafinil arm (45.4 vs 25 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing and managing chemotherapy-related fatigue remains a major challenge. There was a lack of difference between the two arms in the planned primary endpoint. However, there was a modest but consistent trend towards improvement of docetaxel-related fatigue in those treated with modafinil. Based on the study findings, modafinil for the treatment of fatigue associated with docetaxel chemotherapy elicits modest improvements. Larger, longer term, randomized, controlled studies are required to clarify the exact role of modafinil in the treatment of docetaxel-related fatigue.

Modafinil inhibits K(Ca)3.1 currents and muscle contraction via a cAMP-dependent mechanism

Modafinil has been used as a psychostimulant for the treatment of narcolepsy. However, its primary mechanism of action remains elusive. Therefore, we examined the effects of modafinil on K(Ca)3.1 channels and vascular smooth muscle contraction. K(Ca)3.1 currents and channel activity were measured using a voltage-clamp technique and inside-out patches in mouse embryonic fibroblast cell line, NIH-3T3 fibroblasts. Intracellular adenosine 3',5'-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) concentration was measured, and the phosphorylation of K(Ca)3.1 channel protein was examined using western blotting in NIH-3T3 fibroblasts and/or primary cultured mouse aortic smooth muscle cells (SMCs). Muscle contractions were recorded from mouse aorta and rat pulmonary artery by using a myograph developed in-house. Modafinil was found to inhibit K(Ca)3.1 currents in a concentration-dependent manner, and the half-maximal inhibition (IC(50)) of modafinil for the current inhibition was 6.8 ± 0.7 nM. The protein kinase A (PKA) activator forskolin also inhibited K(Ca)3.1 currents. The inhibitory effects of modafinil and forskolin on K(Ca)3.1 currents were blocked by the PKA inhibitors PKI(14-22) or H-89. In addition, modafinil relaxed blood vessels (mouse aorta and rat pulmonary artery) in a concentration-dependent manner. Modafinil increased cAMP concentrations in NIH-3T3 fibroblasts or primary cultured mouse aortic SMCs and phosphorylated K(Ca)3.1 channel protein in NIH-3T3 fibroblasts. However, open probability and single-channel current amplitudes of K(Ca)3.1 channels were not changed by modafinil. From these results, we conclude that modafinil inhibits K(Ca)3.1 channels and vascular smooth muscle contraction by cAMP-dependent phosphorylation, suggesting that modafinil can be used as a cAMP-dependent K(Ca)3.1 channel blocker and vasodilator.