METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, observational study, patients received flexible doses of Vortioxetine for a period of six months. All participants were assessed at baseline and scheduled for monitoring at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Depression severity was assessed using Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale. The Perceived Deficiency Questionnaire (PDQ-5) assessed the perceived cognitive difficulties in concentration, executive functioning, and memory. The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC) was used to assess the patients' quality of life. Side effects of vortioxetine were monitored using the Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC).
RESULTS: Patients experienced a reduction in MADRS scores from 29.89 ± 5.997 at baseline to 11.59 ± 4.629 by Week 24. The PDQ-5 scores showed significant change from Week-4, whereas the EORTC role, emotional, and cognitive functioning scores showed a significant change from Week 2 onwards. CGI-Severity scores decreased from a baseline of 4.39 ± 0.746 to 2.41 ± 1.085 by Week 24. During the 24-Weeks of therapy, around three-quarters of the patients (73.3%) had one or more adverse events reported on the ASEC. The most frequently reported TEAEs were dry mouth, insomnia, somnolence, and headache, with more than a 30% incidence rate.
CONCLUSION: Vortioxetine seems promising in the management of depression and enhancement of cognitive function and quality of life of cancer patients with Major Depressive Disorder.
.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive systematic electronic review (PUBMED, CINAHL, PsyINFO and Ovid) and handsearch were carried out to retrieve published articles up to November 2012, using Depression OR Dysthymia AND (Cancer OR Tumor OR Neoplasms as the keywords. Information about the design of the studies, measuring scale, characteristics of the participants, prevalence of depression and its associated factors from the included studies were extracted and summarized.
RESULTS: We identified 32 eligible studies that recruited 10,826 breast cancer survivors. Most were cross-sectional or prospective designed. The most frequent instrument used to screen depression was the Center for Epidemiological Studies for Depression (CES-D, n=11 studies) followed by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, n=6 studies) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, n=6 studies). CES-D returned about similar prevalence of depression (median=22%, range=13-56%) with BDI (median=22%, range=17-48%) but higher than HADS (median=10%, range=1-22%). Depression was associated with several socio-demographic variables, cancer-related factors, treatment-related factors, subject psychological factors, lifestyle factors, social support and quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer survivors are at risk for depression so that detection of associated factors is important in clinical practice.