Emerging pharmacotherapy of tinnitus

Tinnitus, the perception of sound in the absence of an auditory stimulus, is perceived by about 1 in 10 adults, and for at least 1 in 100, tinnitus severely affects their quality of life. Because tinnitus is frequently associated with irritability, agitation, stress, insomnia, anxiety and depression, the social and economic burdens of tinnitus can be enormous. No curative treatments are available. However, tinnitus symptoms can be alleviated to some extent. The most widespread management therapies consist of auditory stimulation and cognitive behavioral treatment, aiming at improving habituation and coping strategies. Available clinical trials vary in methodological rigor and have been performed for a considerable number of different drugs. None of the investigated drugs have demonstrated providing replicable long-term reduction of tinnitus impact in the majority of patients in excess of placebo effects. Accordingly, there are no FDA or European Medicines Agency approved drugs for the treatment of tinnitus. However, in spite of the lack of evidence, a large variety of different compounds are prescribed off-label. Therefore, more effective pharmacotherapies for this huge and still growing market are desperately needed and even a drug that produces only a small but significant effect would have an enormous therapeutic impact. This review describes current and emerging pharmacotherapies with current difficulties and limitations. In addition, it provides an estimate of the tinnitus market. Finally, it describes recent advances in the tinnitus field which may help overcome obstacles faced in the pharmacological treatment of tinnitus. These include incomplete knowledge of tinnitus pathophysiology, lack of well-established animal models, heterogeneity of different forms of tinnitus, difficulties in tinnitus assessment and outcome measurement and variability in clinical trial methodology. © 2009 Informa UK Ltd.Fil: Langguth, Berthold. Universitat Regensburg; AlemaniaFil: Salvi, Richard. State University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Elgoyhen, Ana Belen. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería Genética y Biología Molecular "Dr. Héctor N. Torres"; Argentin

Quality of life and metabolic status in mildly depressed patients with type 2 diabetes treated with paroxetine: A double-blind randomised placebo controlled 6-month trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Depression is prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes and affects both glycaemic control and overall quality of life. The aim of this investigator-initiated trial was to evaluate the effect of the antidepressant paroxetine on quality of life, metabolic control, and mental well-being in mildly depressed diabetics aged 50–70 years.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We randomised 49 mildly depressed primary care outpatients with non-optimally controlled diabetes to a 6-month double-blind treatment with either paroxetine 20 mg per day or matching placebo. Primary efficacy measurements were quality of life and glycaemic control. The primary global outcome of the study was defined as a 10 points improvement in the SF-36 quality of life score. The primary metabolic outcome of the study was defined as a 0.8%-units decrease in glycosylated haemoglobin A_1c(GHbA_1c). Psychiatric symptoms were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Six patients withdrew their consent before starting medication and six dropped out later in the study. We performed analysis of covariance with the baseline value as a covariate. Quality of life and glycaemic control as well as symptoms of depression and anxiety improved in both groups over the 6-month study period. After three months of treatment we found a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups in GHbA_1c(mean difference = 0.59%-units, p = 0.018) and in SF-36 score (mean difference = 11.0 points, p = 0.039). However, at the end of the study, no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed. No severe adverse events occurred.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This pragmatic study of primary care patients did not confirm earlier preliminary findings indicating a beneficial effect of paroxetine on glycaemic control. The study indicates that in pragmatic circumstances any possible benefit from administration of paroxetine in diabetic patients with sub-threshold depression is likely to be modest and of short duration. Routine antidepressant prescription for patients with diabetes and sub-threshold depressive symptoms is not indicated.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current controlled trials ISRCTN55819922</p

Quality of life and metabolic status in mildly depressed women with type 2 diabetes treated with paroxetine: A single-blind randomised placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Depression is prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes and affects both glycemic control and overall quality of life. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effect of the antidepressant paroxetine on metabolic control, quality of life and mental well-being in mildly depressed women with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We randomised 15 mildly depressed women with non-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes to a 10-week single-blind treatment with either paroxetine 20 mg per day or placebo. Primary efficacy measurements were glycemic control and quality of life. Glycosylated hemoglobin A(1c )(GHbA(1c)) was used as a measure of glycemic control. Quality of life was evaluated using RAND-36. Mental state was assessed using two clinician-rated scoring instruments, Hamilton's Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) and Montgomery-Åsberg's Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and a patient-rated scoring instrument, Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI). RESULTS: At the end of the study no significant difference between groups in improvement of quality of life was found. A trend towards a superior improvement in glycemic control was found in the paroxetine group (p = 0.08). A superior increase in sex-hormone-binding-globuline (SHBG) levels was evidenced in the paroxetine group (p = 0.01) as a sign of improved insulin sensitivity. There was also a trend for superior efficacy of paroxetine in investigator-rated anxiety and depression. This notion was supported by a trend for superior decrease of serum cortisol levels in the paroxetine group (p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Paroxetine has a beneficial effect on measures of insulin sensitivity and may improve glycemic control. Larger studies of longer duration are needed to verify the benefits of paroxetine in type 2 diabetes. While waiting for more conclusive evidence it seems sensible to augment standard care of type 2 diabetes with paroxetine even in patients who do not fulfil routine psychiatric criteria for initiation of antidepressant drug treatment

Oxcarbazepine as monotherapy of acute mania in insufficiently controlled type-1 diabetes mellitus: a case-report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Type-1 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a lifelong serious condition which often renders the application of standard treatment options for patients' comorbid conditions, such as bipolar disorder I, risky – especially for acute manic episodes. We present such a case whereby the application of standard anti-manic treatments would have jeopardized a patient whose physical condition was already compromised by DM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We report the case of a 55-year-old female with a history of type-1 DM since the age of 11, and severe ocular and renal vascular complications thereof. While on the waiting list for pancreatic islet cell transplantation, she developed a manic episode that proved recalcitrant to a treatment with gabapentin, lorazepam and quetiapine. Moreover, her mental state affected adversely her already compromised glycemic control, requiring her psychiatric hospitalization. Her psychotropic medication was almost discontinued and replaced by oxcarbazepine (OXC) up to 1800 mg/day for 10 days.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The patient's mental state improved steadily and on discharge, 3 weeks later, she showed an impressive improvement rate of over 70% on the YMRS. Moreover, she remains normothymic 6 months after discharge, with OXC at 1200 mg/day.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Standard prescribing guidelines for acute mania recommend a combination of an antipsychotic with lithium or, alternatively, a combination of an antipsychotic with valproate or carbamazepine. However, in our case, administration of lithium was at least relatively contra-indicated because of patient's already compromised renal function. Furthermore, antipsychotics increase glucose levels and thus were also relatively contra-indicated. Moreover, the imminent post-transpantation immunosupressant treatment with immuno-modulating medicines also contra-indicated both valproate and carbamazepine. Despite the severe methodological limitations of case reports in general, the present one suggests that OXC as monotherapy might be both safe and efficacious in the treatment of acute mania in patients with early-onset type-1 DM, whose already compromised physical condition constitutes an absolute or relative contra-indication for the administration of standard treatments, though there are no, as yet, randomized clinical trials attesting to its efficacy unambiguously.</p

The opposite effects of fluvoxamine and sertraline in the treatment of psychotic major depression: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Psychotic major depression is a clinical subtype of major depressive disorder. A number of clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of the combination of an antidepressant (for example, a tricyclic antidepressant or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)) and an atypical antipsychotic or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treating psychotic major depression. In several studies, monotherapy of SSRIs such as fluvoxamine has been shown to be effective in the treatment of psychotic major depression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We report on a 36-year-old Japanese woman in whom fluvoxamine (a SSRI with sigma-1 receptor agonist) and sertraline (a SSRI with sigma-1 receptor antagonist) showed the opposite effects on psychotic symptoms in the treatment of psychotic major depression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Symptoms of depression and psychosis in the patient who was non-respondent to antipsychotic drugs improved after fluvoxamine monotherapy. At 3 years later, a switch to sertraline from fluvoxamine dramatically worsened the psychotic symptoms in the patient. Then, a switch back to fluvoxamine from sertraline improved these symptoms 1 week after fluvoxamine treatment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Doctors should consider the monotherapy of sigma-1 receptor agonist fluvoxamine as an alternative approach to treating psychotic major depression.</p

Nitric oxide production and monoamine oxidase activity in cancer patients during interferon-α therapy

Both increased and decreased nitric oxide (NO) synthesis have been reported in patients treated with interferon-α (IFN-α). Animal studies showed that IFN-α administration results in increased levels of biogenic amines, subsequent activation of monoamine oxidases (MAOs), and finally in a change in NO production due to the H2O2 generated by MAOs. We examined the potential relationship between NO production in plasma and MAO-B activity in platelets of 43 cancer patients during 8 weeks of treatment with IFN-α. NO synthesis was quantitated by measuring both the ratio of citrulline and arginine (CIT/ARG-ratio) and total nitrite/nitrate (NOx) levels. Compared to baseline, MAO activity and NOx increased, while the CIT/ARG-ratio decreased. No associations were found between NOx, MAO and CIT/ARG-ratio. Only few associations were observed between changes in the biochemical parameters and changes in psychopathology induced by IFN-α, of which the association between changes in CIT and lassitude was the most consistent. The results suggest that peripheral NO production and MAO activity are unrelated to each other, and that peripheral changes in these biochemical parameters induced by IFN-α are unlikely to contribute to definite psychiatric disturbance

Duloxetine compared with fluoxetine and venlafaxine: use of meta-regression analysis for indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND: Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions. METHODS: The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run. RESULTS: 22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine