PURPOSE: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. This trial was developed to evaluate the efficacy of long-acting methylphenidate for improving cancer-related fatigue and to assess its toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive methylphenidate (target dose, 54 mg/d) or placebo for 4 weeks. The Brief Fatigue Inventory was the primary outcome measure, while secondary outcome measures included a Symptom Experience Diary (SED), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Vitality Subscale, a linear analog self-assessment, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Subject Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: In total, 148 patients were enrolled. Using an area under the serum concentration-time curve analysis, there was no evidence that methylphenidate, as compared with placebo, improved the primary end point of cancer-related fatigue in this patient population (P = .35). Comparisons of secondary end points, including clinically significant changes in quality-of-life variables and cancer-related fatigue change from baseline, were similarly negative. However, a subset analysis suggested that patients with more severe fatigue and/or with more advanced disease did have some fatigue improvement with methylphenidate (eg, in patients with stage III or IV disease, the mean improvement in usual fatigue was 19.7 with methylphenidate v 2.1 with placebo; P = .02). There was a significant difference in self-reported toxicities (SED), with increased levels of nervousness and appetite loss in the methylphenidate arm. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial was unable to support the primary prestudy hypothesis that the chosen long-acting methylphenidate product would decrease cancer-related fatigue.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer. This trial was developed to evaluate the efficacy of long-acting methylphenidate for improving cancer-related fatigue and to assess its toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive methylphenidate (target dose, 54 mg/d) or placebo for 4 weeks. The Brief Fatigue Inventory was the primary outcome measure, while secondary outcome measures included a Symptom Experience Diary (SED), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Vitality Subscale, a linear analog self-assessment, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Subject Global Impression of Change. RESULTS: In total, 148 patients were enrolled. Using an area under the serum concentration-time curve analysis, there was no evidence that methylphenidate, as compared with placebo, improved the primary end point of cancer-related fatigue in this patient population (P = .35). Comparisons of secondary end points, including clinically significant changes in quality-of-life variables and cancer-related fatigue change from baseline, were similarly negative. However, a subset analysis suggested that patients with more severe fatigue and/or with more advanced disease did have some fatigue improvement with methylphenidate (eg, in patients with stage III or IV disease, the mean improvement in usual fatigue was 19.7 with methylphenidate v 2.1 with placebo; P = .02). There was a significant difference in self-reported toxicities (SED), with increased levels of nervousness and appetite loss in the methylphenidate arm. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial was unable to support the primary prestudy hypothesis that the chosen long-acting methylphenidate product would decrease cancer-related fatigue.
Authors: F Gaston-Johansson; J M Fall-Dickson; J Nanda; K V Ohly; S Stillman; S Krumm; M J Kennedy Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: V Mock; A Atkinson; A Barsevick; D Cella; B Cimprich; C Cleeland; J Donnelly; M A Eisenberger; C Escalante; P Hinds; P B Jacobsen; P Kaldor; S J Knight; A Peterman; B F Piper; H Rugo; P Sabbatini; C Stahl Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: S J Thompson; L Leigh; R Christensen; X Xiong; L E Kun; R L Heideman; W E Reddick; A Gajjar; T Merchant; C H Pui; M M Hudson; R K Mulhern Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G A Curt; W Breitbart; D Cella; J E Groopman; S J Horning; L M Itri; D H Johnson; C Miaskowski; S L Scherr; R K Portenoy; N J Vogelzang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2000
Authors: Glenn J Lesser; Doug Case; Nancy Stark; Susan Williford; Jeff Giguere; L Astrid Garino; Michelle J Naughton; Mara Z Vitolins; Mark O Lively; Edward G Shaw Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2013-03
Authors: Jennifer C Felger; Li Li; Paul J Marvar; Bobbi J Woolwine; David G Harrison; Charles L Raison; Andrew H Miller Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Xin Shelley Wang; Fengmin Zhao; Michael J Fisch; Ann M O'Mara; David Cella; Tito R Mendoza; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908