<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_450"
                     title="SSRI and Tamoxifen Increase Mortality Risk (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.014"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/tb/18376?impressionId=1265814794272"
                     
      Overlapping use of tamoxifen and the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) significantly increases the risk of breast cancer mortality, data from a large cohort of breast cancer patients showed.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The excess breast-cancer mortality risk ranged as high as 91%, depending on the duration of simultaneous use, researchers reported online in &lt;em&gt;BMJ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Women taking other antidepressants with tamoxifen, including other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), did not have an increased risk of breast cancer death.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;We estimate that use of paroxetine for 41% of tamoxifen treatment (the median overlap in our sample) would result in one additional breast cancer death within five years of cessation of tamoxifen for every 19.7 patients so treated; the risk with more extensive overlap would be greater,&quot; David Juurlink, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, and colleagues concluded.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to an accumulation of evidence suggesting that inhibition of the cytochrome P450 2D6 isozyme (CYP2D6) may adversely affect outcomes in breast cancer patients taking tamoxifen. CYP2D6 is the principle catalyst for converting tamoxifen into endoxifen, a metabolite with 100-fold greater affinity for the estrogen receptor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Multiple studies have shown that women who have a poor-metabolizer phenotype have lower levels of endoxifen, as do women treated with drugs that inhibit CYP2D6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Indeed, in patients who receive tamoxifen in addition to a CYP2D6 inhibitor, endoxifen concentrations vary inversely with the degree of CYP2D6 inhibition,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Paroxetine is used to treat depression and vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Paroxetine is not the only SSRI antidepressant used by breast cancer patients, but it is the only SSRI that irreversibly inhibits CYP2D6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether the metabolic effects of CYP2D6 inhibition translated into adverse breast cancer outcomes had not been determined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the issue, Juurlink and colleagues compared prescribing data with clinical records of 24,430 breast cancer patients, ages 66 and older, who initiated tamoxifen therapy from 1993 to 2005. Of those, 7,500 also received an antidepressant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the investigators narrowed the study population to 2,430 women who took a single SSRI during tamoxifen therapy. The most commonly prescribed SSRI was paroxetine (25.9%), followed by sertraline (22.3%), citalopram (19.2%), venlafaxine (15%), fluoxetine (10.4%), and fluvoxamine (7.2%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During a mean follow-up of 2.38 years, 1,074 patients died, including 374 breast cancer deaths.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis showed an increased risk of breast cancer death only among women taking paroxetine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The breast cancer mortality risk increased with the duration of concomitant use of paroxetine and tamoxifen. As the duration of therapeutic overlap increased from 25%, to 50%, to 75% of time on tamoxifen, the excess risk of breast cancer death increased from 24%, to 54%, to 91%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigators repeated the analysis, using death from any cause. Overlapping treatment with tamoxifen and paroxetine led to an increased mortality risk of 13%, 28%, and 46% as the duration of overlap increased from 25% to 75%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The results suggest clear implications for use of SSRIs in breast cancer patients on tamoxifen, Frank Andersohn, MD, and Stefan Willich, MD, of Charite University in Berlin, wrote in an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The straightforward answer is to avoid prescribing strong CYP2D6-inhibiting SSRIs (such as paroxetine or fluoxetine) for women with breast cancer who are prescribed tamoxifen, and to consider instead drugs with low potential to inhibit CYP2D6 (such as citalopram or venlafaxine),&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For women who are already taking a potent inhibitor of CYP2D6, doctors should consider switching to a drug that does not inhibit the enzyme, they added. However, any switch should be accomplished gradually, as abrupt discontinuation of an antidepressant confers risk, as well, they noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-author Kathleen Pritchard disclosed relationships with sanofi-aventis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Ortho-Biotech, YM Biosciences, Novartis, Abraxis, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_377"
                     title="Advisory Panel Rates Genomic Cancer Tests"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/tb/18269?impressionId=1265814794272"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Some genomic tests aimed at identifying patients most likely to respond to cancer drugs won a thumbs-up from a Medicare advisory panel, but others didn&apos;t make the grade.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of a national coverage determination under way at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, members of the Medicare Evidence Development &amp;amp; Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) last week rated the clinical value of several pharmacogenomic cancer tests now available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tests would be used to select patients for treatment with drugs including tamoxifen, irinotecan (Camptosar), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and imatinib (Gleevec).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not previously decided whether such tests should be reimbursed by Medicare, although testing is already routine for some of these treatments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA-approved labeling for trastuzumab requires such testing. Imatinib&apos;s approvals include chronic myeloid leukemia featuring the BCR-ABL &quot;Philadelphia chromosome&quot; mutation, although the label doesn&apos;t explicitly mention testing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;CMS is aware that the body of evidence on the role of pharmacogenomic testing in cancer continues to evolve,&quot; according to the agency&apos;s notice of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Recognizing the rapid accumulation of such evidence, CMS seeks guidance from the panel to inform future coverage determinations. We want to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to any demonstrated improved health outcomes of pharmacogenomic testing, and are protected from inaccurate or inappropriate pharmacogenomic testing that could compromise therapy or increase the risks of adverse events during therapy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MEDCAC panelists were asked to rate their confidence in the clinical utility of five tests and in the scientific evidence available for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The five tests cover: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the CYP2D6 drug-metabolizing enzyme for breast cancer patients who are candidates for tamoxifen&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the UGT1A1 gene for colon cancer patients considered for irinotecan treatment&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of HER/neu epidermal growth factor receptor expression in patients with breast cancer, indicating suitability for trastuzumab&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of the BCR-ABL mutation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who would be candidates for imatinib&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Mutations in the K-ras gene for metastatic colorectal cancer patients eligible for cetuximab (Erbitux) or panitumumab (Vectibix)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 15 panel members assigned values of one to five, reflecting low to high confidence, to each test. A score of two reflected medium-low confidence, while a four meant medium-high confidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most of the panelists agreed that the evidence underlying the tests for CYP2D6 and UGT1A1 polymorphisms was still too scant for an assessment of their clinical value. Mean scores for these tests were 2.07 and 1.83, respectively, with nearly all votes either a one or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But MEDCAC members were more confident that the usefulness of the other three tests for diagnostic and monitoring purposes could be evaluated. Mean scores for those tests were all well above four.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the HER/neu, BCR-ABL, and K-ras tests, since members believed the evidence was adequate for assessment, MEDCAC also voted on whether their use actually would improve health outcomes in cancer patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A third ranking provided the committee&apos;s views on whether the conclusions could be generalized to the Medicare population and patients in the community.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean scores for those rankings were all also above four, indicating the panel&apos;s support for these tests as clinically beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, when asked whether there was enough evidence to assess the utility of the BCR-ABL test in detecting treatment failure, panelists didn&apos;t think so. Most of those votes were twos, and the mean was 2.47.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not given a time line for deciding whether to approve Medicare coverage for the tests.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_358"
                     title="Poststroke Antidepressant Boosts Mental Agility (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.009"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/tb/18240?impressionId=1265814794272"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Antidepressants in the first months after a stroke may aid cognitive recovery for patients without depression, according to a randomized trial analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Global cognitive function scores improved significantly more with escitalopram (Lexapro) than with problem-solving therapy or placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01), according to Ricardo E. Jorge, MD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Memory scores rose significantly higher with the antidepressant as well (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01), with both effects independent of those on depression, they reported in the February &lt;em&gt;Archives of General Psychiatry&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Adjunctive restorative therapies administered during the first few months after stroke, the period with the greatest degree of spontaneous recovery, reduce the number of stroke patients with significant disability,&quot; the researchers concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/9621&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/9621&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;primary analysis&lt;/a&gt; of the trial, reported in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of the American Medical Association on&lt;/em&gt; May 28, 2008, showed that prophylactic escitalopram treatment would prevent poststroke depression in one patient for every 7.2 treated &lt;em&gt;(P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001 compared with placebo). That article ultimately raised a controversy over an undisclosed conflict of interest.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Escitalopram is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). Since serotonin plays a role in neuroplastic changes in the developing brain as well as in depression, Jorge&apos;s group analyzed whether there might be such an effect after a stroke.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study randomized patients to double-blind treatment with escitalopram (10 mg/d under age 65 or 5 mg/day age 65 and older) or placebo or unblinded problem-solving therapy (12 sessions of going through steps to arrive at a course of action for a patient-selected problem).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The intent-to-treat analysis included 129 patients treated starting within the first three months after their mild to moderate severity stroke and who did not meet criteria for major or minor depression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, global cognitive functioning was significantly changed between groups as measured on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After controlling for change in depression score and type of stroke, escitalopram was associated with the best cognitive recovery, an adjusted mean change of 9.9 points compared with 1.9 for problem-solving therapy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01) and 4.0 for placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Similarly, for delayed memory scores on the same test battery, escitalopram came out on top (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;After adjustment for depression score change and stroke mechanism, the antidepressant was associated with an 11.2 point improvement in delayed memory, compared with a change of -0.7 with problem-solving therapy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) and 3.9 with placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.02).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On test of immediate memory, escitalopram again yielded the best recovery.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers found mean improvement of 13.4 points with the antidepressant compared with 2.0 with problem-solving therapy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) and 7.2 with placebo (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.04), after adjustment for time between stroke and treatment, depression score change, and stroke type.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These mental benefits appeared to have an impact on functional status as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cognitive domain scores on the Functional Independence Measure were better for escitalopram-treated patients than those who didn&apos;t get the drug (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.05), as were memory domain scores on the same measure (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.03).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;At baseline, the global cognitive functioning and delayed and immediate memory scores were nonsignificantly lower in the antidepressant group than in the other two groups, which could have biased the results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, the treatment effects appeared to be real, Jorge explained in an interview.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an unpublished regression analysis, the baseline scores were not a significant covariate. &quot;If [the results were] related only to the difference in baseline, this would be significant but it wasn&apos;t,&quot; he told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, with an initially lower score it might have been expected that the escitalopram-treated group would have had a lower score at the end of the study than the other groups, added co-author Robert G. Robinson, MD, also of the University of Iowa.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But that wasn&apos;t the case, he said in an interview. With regard to delayed memory, for example, &quot;the escitalopram-treated group went from the most impaired to the best performing.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers didn&apos;t compare end scores for the escitalopram, problem solving therapy, and placebo groups, but they were: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;For global cognitive functioning 89.8, 89.1, and 91.0 points, respectively&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;For delayed memory, 96.6, 89.1, and 94.2, respectively&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;For immediate memory, 95.1, 94.9, and 98.5, respectively&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The treatment showed no effect on other individual cognitive measurements, including those for attention, language, and IQ. Nor were there significant differences in changes in occupational or living conditions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Although SSRIs such as escitalopram have been associated with hospitalization for GI bleeding and falls in prior studies, these complications did not occur in Jorge&apos;s study.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Long-term administration of SSRIs appears to be an effective and safe treatment option to improve cognitive outcomes among patients with cerebrovascular disease,&quot; they concluded in the &lt;em&gt;Archives&lt;/em&gt; paper.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that the study was limited by lack of CT or MRI scans and the younger age of escitalopram-treated patients, compared with other groups. That may have been a source of bias, although age did not appear to be a significant factor in the trial results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In this analysis, the researchers emphasized that the trial was not financially supported in any way by any drug company  --  a declaration hinting at the controversy that brewed last year over failure of one of the authors of the original &lt;em&gt;JAMA&lt;/em&gt; article to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/13391&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/13391&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;properly disclose ties&lt;/a&gt; to Forest Pharmaceuticals, which makes escitalopram.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another scientist who discovered that omission published the information in a competing journal, inducing &lt;em&gt;JAMA&lt;/em&gt; to issue a gag rule on reporting of undisclosed conflicts of interest. That policy encourages those who discover such conflicts to report them to &lt;em&gt;JAMA&apos;s&lt;/em&gt; editors but prohibits them from disclosing the conflicts publicly pending an investigation by the journal.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the current analysis, the disclosure statement indicated that co-author Robertson, had received honoraria and speakers&apos; bureau fees from Forest, with the caveat that &quot;none of the design, analysis, or expenses (including the cost of medications) of this study were supported by monies, materials, or any intellectual input from Forest Laboratories.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported solely by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jorge reported having received travel awards to participate in national meetings from the former Hamilton Pharmaceutical Company and Avanir Pharmaceutical Company.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-authors reported financial conflicts of interest with Merck, NMT Medical, Eli Lilly, Centocor, Sanofi-Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Boerhringer-Ingelheim, Schering-Plough, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline, the former Hamilton Pharmaceutical Company, Avanir Pharmaceutical Company, Lubeck, Forest Laboratories, and Pfizer.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No pharmaceutical company donated medications for or had any financial interest in the study.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_19_2894"
                     title="Depression May Increase Cancer Mortality Risk (CME/CE)"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/OtherCancers/tb/15963?impressionId=1265814794272"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Cancer patients have a modest but statistically significant increase in risk of death if they are clinically depressed, according to a meta-analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Depressive symptoms increased the mortality risk by as much as 25%, and patients with a diagnosis of major or minor depression had almost a 40% greater risk of dying.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, neither depressive symptoms nor a depression diagnosis increased the risk of cancer progression, authors reported online in &lt;em&gt;Cancer&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This meta-analysis presented reasonable evidence that depression predicts mortality, but not progression, in cancer patients,&quot; Jillian R. Satin, of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and colleagues concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The associated risk was statistically significant but relatively small. The effect of depression remains after adjustment for clinical prognosticators, suggesting that depression may play a causal role.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Studies have shown that most cancer patients and oncologists believe that psychological variables affect the likelihood of disease progression.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The current study focused on depressive symptoms and clinical diagnosis of depression because depression has been the most commonly studied psychological variable with respect to cancer progression and mortality, the authors said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Moreover, depression is the only psychological condition found more often in cancer patients than in the general population, they continued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Further rationale for studying depression has come from the existence of a plausible model to link depression and cancer outcome. Specifically, chronic activation of the hypothalamopituitary-adrenal axis has been implicated as a possible mediator of depression&apos;s effect on cancer.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The authors queried multiple databases to identify studies that prospectively evaluated the association between depression and the risk of cancer progression or mortality. They found five studies that examined the association between depression and cancer progression in a total of 2,097 patients, and 27 studies that evaluated depression and cancer mortality in 9,417 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The studies of cancer progression consisted of three that examined the effect of depressive symptoms and two that assessed the impact of a clinical diagnosis of depression, as determined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The adjusted relative risk of cancer progression did not reach statistical significance for depressive symptoms (RR 1.23, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.275) or clinical depression (RR 1.179 to 1.26, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.633 to &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.764).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Studies that examined depression and cancer mortality yielded an unadjusted risk ratio of 1.25 (95% CI 1.12-1.40, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001) for depressive symptoms and a relative risk of 1.39 for a diagnosis of minor or major depression (95% CI 1.10 to 1.89, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.03).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Our meta-analysis provides an empirical justification for systematic screening of psychological distress and subsequent treatments,&quot; the authors concluded.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Although psychological treatment should be available to distressed cancer patients ... an impressive improvement in survival is unlikely unless a subgroup is identified that could benefit more than others,&quot; they added.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also cautioned that their analysis &quot;does not support a need for patients and their families to feel responsible for their disease outcome if they experience depression.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors had no disclosures involving commercial interests.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20090101_1_250"
                     title="Poverty Limits Efficacy of Treatment for Depression"
                     score="-0.005"
                     href="