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

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

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional recovery after acute stroke (EFFECTS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Studies have suggested that fluoxetine could improve neurological recovery after stroke. The Efficacy oF Fluoxetine—a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) trial aimed to assess whether administration of oral fluoxetine for 6 months after acute stroke improves functional outcome. Methods EFFECTS was an investigator-led, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older between 2 and 15 days after stroke onset in 35 stroke and rehabilitation centres in Sweden. Eligible patients had a clinical diagnosis of ischaemic or intracerebral haemorrhage, brain imaging that was consistent with intracerebral haemorrhage or ischaemic stroke, and had at least one persisting focal neurological deficit. A web-based randomisation system that incorporated a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily or matching placebo capsules for 6 months. Patients, care providers, investigators, and outcomes assessors were masked to the allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 6 months, analysed in all patients with available mRS data at the 6-month follow-up; we did an ordinal analysis adjusted for the minimisation variables used in the randomisation. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-006130-16; ISRCTN, 13020412; and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02683213. Findings Between Oct 20, 2014, and June 28, 2019, 1500 patients were enrolled, of whom 750 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 750 were randomly assigned to placebo. At 6 months, mRS data were available for 737 (98%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 742 (99%) patients in the placebo group. There was no effect of fluoxetine on the primary outcome—distribution across mRS score categories—compared with placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·13]; p=0·42). The proportion of patients with a new diagnosis of depression was lower with fluoxetine than with placebo (54 [7%] patients vs 81 [11%] patients; difference −3·60% [–6·49 to −0·71]; p=0·015), but fluoxetine was associated with more bone fractures (28 [4%] vs 11 [2%]; difference 2·27% [0·66 to 3·87]; p=0·0058) and hyponatraemia (11 [1%] vs one [<1%]; difference 1·33% [0·43 to 2·23]; p=0·0038) at 6 months. Interpretation Functional outcome after acute stroke did not improve with oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily for 6 months. Fluoxetine reduced the occurrence of depression but increased the risk of bone fractures and hyponatraemia. Our results do not support the use of fluoxetine after acute stroke

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

Genetic characterization of Bremia lactucae using molecular markers.

Degree granted in Genetics.Typescript.SPEC. COLL. HAS ARCHIVAL COPY; MICRO. ROOM HAS MICROFICHE COPY (2 SHEETS).Thesis (M.S.)--U. of Calif., Davis.Mode of access: Internet