Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression. Recently, small trials have demonstrated that SSRIs might improve recovery after stroke, even in people who are not depressed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the least biased way to bring together data from several trials. Given the promising effect of SSRIs on stroke recovery seen in small trials, a systematic review and meta-analysis is needed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether SSRIs improve recovery after stroke, and whether treatment with SSRIs was associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2011), Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group Trials Register (November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1948 to August 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to August 2011), CINAHL (from 1982 to August 2011), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (from 1985 to August 2011), PsycINFO (from 1967 to August 2011) and PsycBITE (Pyschological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy) (March 2012). To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched trials registers, pharmaceutical websites, reference lists, contacted experts and performed citation tracking of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that recruited stroke survivors (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. In order to be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (dependence and disability) or secondary (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early) outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. For trials in English, two review authors independently extracted data. For Chinese papers, one review author extracted data. We used standardised mean differences (SMD) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 56 completed trials of SSRI versus control, of which 52 trials (4059 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. There were statistically significant benefits of SSRI on both of the primary outcomes: RR for reducing dependency at the end of treatment was 0.81 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97) based on one trial, and for disability score, the SMD was 0.91 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) (22 trials involving 1343 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%; P < 0.0001). For neurological deficit, depression and anxiety, there were statistically significant benefits of SSRIs. For neurological deficit score, the SMD was -1.00 (95% CI -1.26 to -0.75) (29 trials involving 2011 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). For dichotomous depression scores, the RR was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.77) (eight trials involving 771 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 77%; P < 0.0001). For continuous depression scores, the SMD was -1.91 (95% CI -2.34 to -1.48) (39 trials involving 2728 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 95%; P < 0.00001). For anxiety, the SMD was -0.77 (95% CI -1.52 to -0.02) (eight trials involving 413 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 92%; P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant benefit of SSRI on cognition, death, motor deficits and leaving the trial early. For cognition, the SMD was 0.32 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.86), (seven trials involving 425 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). The RR for death was 0.76 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.70) (46 trials involving 3344 participants) with no heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 0%; P = 0.85). For motor deficits, the SMD was -0.33 (95% CI -1.22 to 0.56) (two trials involving 145 participants). The RR for leaving the trial early was 1.02 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21) in favour of control, with no heterogeneity between trials. There was a non-significant excess of seizures (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 11.63) (seven trials involving 444 participants), a non-significant excess of gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.94 to 3.85) (14 trials involving 902 participants) and a non-significant excess of bleeding (RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 13.05) (two trials involving 249 participants) in those allocated SSRIs. Data were not available on quality of life, fatigue or healthcare costs.There was no clear evidence from subgroup analyses that one SSRI was consistently superior to another, or that time since stroke or depression at baseline had a major influence on effect sizes. Sensitivity analyses suggested that effect sizes were smaller when we excluded trials at high or unclear risk of bias.Only eight trials provided data on outcomes after treatment had been completed; the effect sizes were generally in favour of SSRIs but CIs were wide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SSRIs appeared to improve dependence, disability, neurological impairment, anxiety and depression after stroke, but there was heterogeneity between trials and methodological limitations in a substantial proportion of the trials. Large, well-designed trials are now needed to determine whether SSRIs should be given routinely to patients with stroke

Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients with COVID-19 Related Stroke

Introduction. COVID-19-related stroke is associated with a significantly higher mortality than COVID-19 or stroke alone. Mechanisms underlying the increased mortality of patients with stroke and COVID-19 should be thoroughly studied. Objective: to analyze predictors of hospital mortality associated with COVID-19-related stroke. Materials and methods. We retrospectively analyzed 1,386 cases of COVID-19-related stroke reported by an infectious diseases inpatient clinic in 2020. We studied clinical, laboratory, and instrumental parameters in patients with different outcomes. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results. 539 (38.9%) patients died during their hospital stay, with 437 (38.0%) deaths from ischemic stroke and 102 (42.7%) deaths from hemorrhagic stroke (p = 0.0001). Independent predictors of mortality associated with COVID-19-related stroke included age, neurological deficit severity measured by NIHSS, COVID-19 severity, and laboratory parameters including white blood cell count, creatinine, glucose, and D-dimer blood levels. Discussion. The results of logistic regression analysis were able to explain only 41% of the variability in hospital deaths among patients with stroke associated with COVID-19. Conclusion. Hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related stroke is associated with severity of inflammatory response, impaired coagulation, age, neurological deficit severity, and somatic comorbidities

Interventions for post-stroke fatigue

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) is a common and distressing problem after stroke. The best ways to prevent or treat PSF are uncertain. Several different interventions can be argued to have a rational basis. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, among people with stroke, any intervention reduces the proportion of people with fatigue, fatigue severity, or both; and to determine the effect of intervention on health-related quality of life, disability, dependency and death, and whether such intervention is cost effective. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched May 2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), AMED (1985 to May 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2014), Digital Dissertations (1861 to May 2014), British Nursing Index (1985 to May 2014), PEDro (searched May 2014) and PsycBITE (searched May 2014). We also searched four ongoing trials registries, scanned reference lists, performed citation tracking of included trials and contacted experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently scrutinised all titles and abstracts and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full texts for potentially relevant studies and three review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an intervention with a control, or compared different interventions for PSF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included trial. The primary outcomes were severity of fatigue, or proportion of people with fatigue after treatment. We performed separate analyses for trials investigating efficacy in treating PSF, trials investigating efficacy in preventing PSF and trials not primarily investigating efficacy in PSF but which reported fatigue as an outcome. We pooled results from trials that had a control arm. For trials that compared different potentially active interventions without a control arm, we performed analyses for individual trials without pooling.We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) as the effect size for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled the results using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We performed separate subgroup analyses for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. We also performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 12,490 citations, obtained full texts for 58 studies and included 12 trials (three from the 2008 search and nine from the 2014 search) with 703 participants. Eight trials primarily investigated the efficacy in treating PSF, of which six trials with seven comparisons provided data suitable for meta-analysis (five pharmacological interventions: fluoxetine, enerion, (-)-OSU6162, citicoline and a combination of Chinese herbs; and two non-pharmacological interventions: a fatigue education programme and a mindfulness-based stress reduction programme). The fatigue severity was lower in the intervention groups than in the control groups (244 participants, pooled SMD -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.93 to -0.21), with significant heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value &#60; 0.00001). The beneficial effect was not seen in trials that had used adequate allocation concealment (two trials, 89 participants, SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.04) or trials that had used adequate blinding of outcome assessors (four trials, 198 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -2.31 to 0.11).No trial primarily investigated the efficacy in preventing PSF.Four trials (248 participants) did not primarily investigate the efficacy on fatigue but other symptoms after stroke. None of these interventions showed any benefit on reducing PSF, which included tirilazad mesylate, continuous positive airway pressure for sleep apnoea, antidepressants and a self management programme for recovery from chronic diseases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention to treat or prevent fatigue after stroke. Trials to date have been small and heterogeneous, and some have had a high risk of bias. Some of the interventions described were feasible in people with stroke, but their efficacy should be investigated in RCTs with a more robust study design and adequate sample sizes

Vestibular drop attacks in Ménière's disease : A systematic review and meta-analysis of frequency, correlates and consequences

BACKGROUND: Vestibular drop attacks (VDA), also called Tumarkin otolith crises as a complication of Ménière's disease (MD) were first described in 1936. Nevertheless, a clearer understanding of their prevalence and manifestations is needed. THE OBJECTIVE: of this review is to determine the frequency, correlates and consequences of VDA in MD. METHOD: Three databases were searched (i.e., MEDLINE, PubMed and Google Academia). A total of 1,791 references were identified, of which 18 studies were considered eligible. There was a large variation in the definition of VDA used in the studies. RESULTS: The frequency of VDA in MD leading to a fall to the ground varied from 3 to 19% in 9 hospital-based studies. In studies where a less restrictive definition of VDA included attacks with postural perturbation, tripping and near-to-fall situations was used the prevalence ranged from 50 to 72%. The pooled frequency of VDA leading to fall to the ground was 8% (95% CI 4 to 12%) in hospital-based studies. In these studies, VDA often occurred in severe and advanced MD whereas in cohort studies such connection was not found. Co-morbidity with migraine increased the likelihood of VDA occurrence in MD. In 3 studies syncope was recorded in connection to VDA with falls. In terms of clinical manifestation, audiometry, MRI, vestibular evoked muscle response measures indicated endolymphatic hydrops with involvement of the otolith system. The hearing loss was more pronounced, and balance was worse in MD patients with VDA than in those without. Injury associated with VDA was reported in only one study. CONCLUSIONS: VDA is a common phenomenon in MD, occurring even in mild MD and complicated with syncope. Some preliminary evidence suggests that VDA may lead to severe injuries.acceptedVersionPeer reviewe

Systematic review: Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of post-stroke fatigue

Background: Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) affects around 50% of stroke survivors. Previous systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials found insufficient evidence to guide practice, but most excluded Chinese studies. Furthermore, their searches are now out-of-date. Aims: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for treating PSF. Methods: We screened Airitri, CNKI, VIP, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Cochrane Stroke Group Trial Register, EMBASE, EU Clinical Trial Register, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Wanfang, and WHO ICTRP up to 11 November 2022. Our primary outcome was fatigue severity. We conducted subgroup analysis by drug type and sensitivity analysis after excluding the trials at high risk of bias. Secondary outcomes included mood and quality of life. Results: We screened 33,297 citations and identified 10 published completed trials, 6 unpublished completed trials, and 6 ongoing trials. Pharmacological treatments were associated with lower fatigue severity at the end of treatment (10 published completed trials, 600 participants, pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): −1.29 to −0.31; I2 = 86%, p &lt; 0.00001), but not at follow-up (265 participants, pooled SMD = −0.14, 95% CI: −0.38 to 0.10; I2 = 0, p = 0.51). However, these trials were small and had considerable risk of bias. Beneficial effects were seen in trials with low risk of bias on randomization, missing outcome data, and reporting bias. There were insufficient data on secondary outcomes for meta-analysis, but six trials reported improved quality of life. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support a particular pharmacological treatment for PSF, thus current clinical guidelines do not require amendment

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post‐stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post‐stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta‐analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre‐specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow‐up. Thirty‐eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD ‐0.0; 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high‐quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high‐quality evidence) at the end of treatment. In the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high‐quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high‐quality evidence). Cognition was slightly better in the control group (MD ‐1.22, 95% CI ‐2.37 to ‐0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate‐quality evidence). Only one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD ‐0.39, 95% CI ‐1.12 to 0.33; low‐quality evidence). SSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, ‐0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate‐quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high‐quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate‐quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high‐quality evidence). One study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants). There was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence). SSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD ‐0.06; 95% CI ‐1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate‐quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI ‐0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high‐quality evidence). When all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent. There was insufficient data to perform a meta‐analysis of outcomes at end of follow‐up. Several small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high‐quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk

A roadmap for research in post-stroke fatigue:Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

Rationale: Fatigue affects almost half of all people living with stroke. Stroke survivors rank understanding fatigue and how to reduce it as one of the highest research priorities. Methods: We convened an interdisciplinary, international group of clinical and pre-clinical researchers and lived experience experts. We identified four priority areas: (1) best measurement tools for research, (2) clinical identification of fatigue and potentially modifiable causes, (3) promising interventions and recommendations for future trials, and (4) possible biological mechanisms of fatigue. Cross-cutting themes were aphasia and the voice of people with lived experience. Working parties were formed and structured consensus building processes were followed. Results: We present 20 recommendations covering outcome measures for research, development, and testing of new interventions and priority areas for future research on the biology of post-stroke fatigue. We developed and recommend the use of the Stroke Fatigue Clinical Assessment Tool. Conclusions: By synthesizing current knowledge in post-stroke fatigue across clinical and pre-clinical fields, our work provides a roadmap for future research into post-stroke fatigue

A roadmap for research in post-stroke fatigue: consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

Rationale: Fatigue affects almost half of all people living with stroke. Stroke survivors rank understanding fatigue and how to reduce it as one of the highest research priorities. Methods: We convened an interdisciplinary, international group of clinical and pre-clinical researchers and lived experience experts. We identified four priority areas: (1) best measurement tools for research, (2) clinical identification of fatigue and potentially modifiable causes, (3) promising interventions and recommendations for future trials, and (4) possible biological mechanisms of fatigue. Cross-cutting themes were aphasia and the voice of people with lived experience. Working parties were formed and structured consensus building processes were followed. Results: We present 20 recommendations covering outcome measures for research, development, and testing of new interventions and priority areas for future research on the biology of post-stroke fatigue. We developed and recommend the use of the Stroke Fatigue Clinical Assessment Tool. Conclusions: By synthesizing current knowledge in post-stroke fatigue across clinical and pre-clinical fields, our work provides a roadmap for future research into post-stroke fatigue

Fluoxetine for stroke recovery: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective: To determine whether fluoxetine, at any dose, given within the first year after stroke to patients who did not have to have mood disorders at randomisation led to a reduction in disability, dependency, neurological deficits and fatigue; improved motor function, mood, and cognition at the end of treatment and follow-up, with the same number or fewer adverse effects. Methods: Searches in July 2018 included several databases, trials registers, reference lists, contact with experts. We excluded RCTs requiring patients to have mood disorder at randomisation. Co-primary outcomes were dependence and disability. Dichotomous data were synthesised using risk ratios (RR) and continuous data using standardised mean differences (SMD). Quality was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias methods. Sensitivity analyses explored influence of study quality. Results: The searches identified 3412 references of which 491 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Six new completed RCTs (n=3710) were eligible, making a total of 13 trials (n=4145). There was no difference in the proportion independent at the end of treatment (3 trials, n=3249, 36·6% fluoxetine vs 36·7% control; RR 1·00, 95% confidence interval 0·91 to 1.09, p=0·99, I2 78%) and no difference in disability (7 trials n=3404, SMD 0·05, -0·02 to 0·12 p=0·15, I2=81%). Fluoxetine was associated with better neurological scores and less depression but more seizures. Among the four (n=3283) high quality RCTs, the only difference between groups was lower depression scores with fluoxetine. Conclusion: Fluoxetine does not reduce disability and dependency after stroke. It improves depression scores but increases seizures. Ongoing RCTs will determine its effects in stroke vary depending on ethnicity, background treatment and other factors. Classification of evidence: meta-analysi