OBJECTIVE: Preliminary data suggest that flaxseed, a rich source of dietary lignans, may be a potentially effective treatment of hot flashes. A phase III, randomized, placebo, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of flaxseed in reducing hot flashes. METHODS:Postmenopausal women with or without breast cancer were randomly assigned to a flaxseed bar (providing 410 mg of lignans) for 6 weeks versus a placebo bar. Participants completed daily, prospective, hot flash diaries during the baseline week, and then ate one study bar per day for 6 weeks while recording their daily hot flashes. The intraparticipant difference in hot flash activity between baseline and the last treatment week was the primary endpoint. Adverse effects were evaluated through a self-report and the Common Terminology Criteria assessment. RESULTS:A total of 188 women were enrolled in this trial. The mean hot flash score was reduced 4.9 in the flaxseed group and 3.5 in the placebo group (P = 0.29). In both groups, slightly more than a third of the women received a 50% reduction in their hot flash score. Only one adverse effect was significantly different between groups, grade 1 pruritus, which was more common in the placebo group (8% vs 1%). Both groups reported abdominal distension, flatulence, diarrhea, and nausea. Adherence and ability to detect treatment assignment did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial do not support the use of 410 mg of lignans for the reduction of hot flashes. The bars were fairly well tolerated, with both groups reporting gastrointestinal effects, probably due to the fiber content.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Preliminary data suggest that flaxseed, a rich source of dietary lignans, may be a potentially effective treatment of hot flashes. A phase III, randomized, placebo, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of flaxseed in reducing hot flashes. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with or without breast cancer were randomly assigned to a flaxseed bar (providing 410 mg of lignans) for 6 weeks versus a placebo bar. Participants completed daily, prospective, hot flash diaries during the baseline week, and then ate one study bar per day for 6 weeks while recording their daily hot flashes. The intraparticipant difference in hot flash activity between baseline and the last treatment week was the primary endpoint. Adverse effects were evaluated through a self-report and the Common Terminology Criteria assessment. RESULTS: A total of 188 women were enrolled in this trial. The mean hot flash score was reduced 4.9 in the flaxseed group and 3.5 in the placebo group (P = 0.29). In both groups, slightly more than a third of the women received a 50% reduction in their hot flash score. Only one adverse effect was significantly different between groups, grade 1 pruritus, which was more common in the placebo group (8% vs 1%). Both groups reported abdominal distension, flatulence, diarrhea, and nausea. Adherence and ability to detect treatment assignment did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial do not support the use of 410 mg of lignans for the reduction of hot flashes. The bars were fairly well tolerated, with both groups reporting gastrointestinal effects, probably due to the fiber content.
Authors: Matthew P Goetz; Stacey K Knox; Vera J Suman; James M Rae; Stephanie L Safgren; Matthew M Ames; Daniel W Visscher; Carol Reynolds; Fergus J Couch; Wilma L Lingle; Richard M Weinshilboum; Emily G Barr Fritcher; Andrea M Nibbe; Zeruesenay Desta; Anne Nguyen; David A Flockhart; Edith A Perez; James N Ingle Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-11-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Barbara A Pockaj; James G Gallagher; Charles L Loprinzi; Philip J Stella; Debra L Barton; Jeff A Sloan; Beth I Lavasseur; Radha M Rao; Tom R Fitch; Kendrith M Rowland; Paul J Novotny; Patrick J Flynn; Elliott Richelson; Abdul H Fauq Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Debra L Barton; Beth I LaVasseur; Jeff A Sloan; Allen N Stawis; Kathleen A Flynn; Missy Dyar; David B Johnson; Pamela J Atherton; Brent Diekmann; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S K Quella; C L Loprinzi; D L Barton; J A Knost; J A Sloan; B I LaVasseur; D Swan; K R Krupp; K D Miller; P J Novotny Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J R Hilditch; J Lewis; A Peter; B van Maris; A Ross; E Franssen; G H Guyatt; P G Norton; E Dunn Journal: Maturitas Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: C L Loprinzi; J C Michalak; S K Quella; J R O'Fallon; A K Hatfield; R A Nelimark; A M Dose; T Fischer; C Johnson; N E Klatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-08-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patricia F Harris; Patrick L Remington; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Catherine I Allen; Polly A Newcomb Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Haeseong Park; Rui Qin; Thomas J Smith; Pamela J Atherton; Debra L Barton; Keren Sturtz; Shaker R Dakhil; Daniel M Anderson; Kathleen Flynn; Suneetha Puttabasavaiah; Nguyet Anh Le-Lindqwister; Gilbert D A Padula; Charles L Loprinzi Journal: Menopause Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: William I Fisher; Aimee K Johnson; Gary R Elkins; Julie L Otte; Debra S Burns; Menggang Yu; Janet S Carpenter Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kunal C Kadakia; Charles L Loprinzi; Pamela J Atherton; Kelliann C Fee-Schroeder; Amit Sood; Debra L Barton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.603