OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the use of antidepressants for physical and psychological symptoms in cancer patients.
RESULTS: Our findings showed the mixed result of positive and negative findings in various symptoms associated with cancer patients. These studies are categorised according to the hierarchy of evidence from high to low level, namely randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, case reports, as well as other type of publications. The majority of antidepressants used in cancer patients seem to be beneficial for the treatment of depression, anxiety, hot flashes and other symptoms such as sexual dysfunction, fatigue, nicotine dependence, vasomotor symptoms, executive functions, sleep problems, pruritus, as well as for hypochondriasis. While fluoxetine was found to be associated with the reduction of antiemetic property in ondansetron, mirtazapine was identified to be a good alternative in treating nausea and cachexia among cancer patients.
CONCLUSION: More research studies with adequate statistical power are warranted to validate the use of antidepressants among cancer patients in treating these physical and psychological symptoms.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination.
CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, retrospective study among epilepsy patients treated with perampanel. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of perampanel as an adjunctive in our hospital.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: From our cohort of 25 patients, most of the patients were either on one or three anti-seizure medications (ASMs) prior to initiation of perampanel. Perampanel was added in 88% of them due to persistent seizures. Twenty-two (88%) patients experienced reduction in seizure frequency. 12% experienced mild side effects, which were leg cramps, hyponatremia and drowsiness. Only 1 patient stopped perampanel due to its side effects.
CONCLUSION: Perampanel is a well-tolerated ASM that should be widely used as an adjunctive. More studies with regards to its efficacy and safety involving more centres are encouraged in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial involved treatment-naïve H. pylori-positive patients. Ninety patients received standard triple therapy for 2 weeks before receiving either a probiotic or placebo for 4 weeks. The posttreatment eradication rate was assessed via a 14 C urea breath test in Week 8. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire and an interview on treatment adverse effects were conducted during this study.
RESULTS: The eradication rate was higher in the probiotic group than in the placebo group, with a 22.2% difference in the intention-to-treat analysis (91.1% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007) and 24.3% difference in the per-protocol analysis (93.2% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007). The probiotic group showed significant pre- to post-treatment reductions in indigestion, constipation, abdominal pain, and total GSRS scores. The probiotic group showed significantly greater reductions in GSRS scores than the placebo group: indigestion (4.34 ± 5.00 vs. 1.78 ± 5.64; p = 0.026), abdominal pain (2.64 ± 2.88 vs. 0.89 ± 3.11; p = 0.007), constipation (2.34 ± 3.91 vs. 0.64 ± 2.92; p = 0.023), and total score (12.41 ± 12.19 vs. 4.24 ± 13.72; p = 0.004). The probiotic group reported significantly fewer adverse headache (0% vs. 15.6%; p = 0.012) and abdominal pain (0% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.026) effects.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in H. pylori eradication rate and attenuation of symptoms and adverse treatment effects when L. reuteri was given as an adjunct treatment.
AIM AND METHODS: We made a flash survey on COVID-19 incidence and severity among children on anticancer treatment. Respondents were asked by email to fill in a short Web-based survey.
RESULTS: We received reports from 25 countries, where approximately 10,000 patients at risk are followed up. At the time of the survey, more than 200 of these children were tested, nine of whom were positive for COVID-19. Eight of the nine cases had asymptomatic to mild disease, and one was just diagnosed with COVID-19. We also discuss preventive measures that are in place or should be taken and treatment options in immunocompromised children with COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: Thus, even children receiving anticancer chemotherapy may have a mild or asymptomatic course of COVID-19. While we should not underestimate the risk of developing a more severe course of COVID-19 than that observed here, the intensity of preventive measures should not cause delays or obstructions in oncological treatment.