Stroke survivors’ priorities for research related to life after stroke

Background - Stroke has transitioned from an untreatable, unpreventable disease to a highly treatable and preventable disease over recent decades, and the number of stroke survivors is expected to increase. The number is also foreseen to grow larger as a result of an aging population. With an escalating number of stroke survivors, research on how to improve life after stroke is needed. Aims - The primary aim was to determine which area of research related to life after stroke that stroke patients and their informal carers prioritized as being relevant and valuable. Methods - A cross-sectional study of all patients who had completed the 12 months of follow-up in the EFFECTS trial. In the questionnaire the stroke patients and their informal carers were asked to prioritize areas of research they considered important and valuable with respect to their life after stroke. Results - Of the 731 patients who were still alive after the 12 months-follow-up, 589 responded. The most prioritized areas of research were Balance and walking difficulties (290 (49%) responders) and Post-stroke fatigue (173 (29%) responders). Women answered the undefined alternative “other” more often than men (43 women (11%) versus 11 men (6%), p = .04). Younger patients prioritized Post-stroke fatigue to a higher extent (88 (45%) versus (22%), p Balance and walking difficulties (214 (54%) versus 76 (40%), p = .002) and Speech difficulties (38 (10%) versus 9 (5%), p = .045). Conclusions - Life after stroke is perceived differentely with aging. Future research should address strategies to face challenges such as imbalance and walking difficulties and post-stroke-fatigue

Soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is transiently elevated in COVID-19 and correlates with specific inflammatory and endothelial markers

The main entry receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). SARS-CoV-2 interactions with ACE2 may increase ectodomain shedding but consequences for the renin-angiotensin system and pathology in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. We measured soluble ACE2 (sACE2) and sACE levels by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 114 hospital-treated COVID-19 patients compared with 10 healthy controls; follow-up samples after four months were analyzed for 58 patients. Associations between sACE2 respectively sACE and risk factors for severe COVID-19, outcome, and inflammatory markers were investigated. Levels of sACE2 were higher in COVID-19 patients than in healthy controls, median 5.0 (interquartile range 2.8-11.8) ng/ml versus 1.4 (1.1-1.6) ng/ml, p < .0001. sACE2 was higher in men than women but was not affected by other risk factors for severe COVID-19. sACE2 decreased to 2.3 (1.6-3.9) ng/ml at follow-up, p < .0001, but remained higher than in healthy controls, p = .012. sACE was marginally lower during COVID-19 compared with at follow-up, 57 (45-70) ng/ml versus 72 (52-87) ng/ml, p = .008. Levels of sACE2 and sACE did not differ depending on survival or disease severity. sACE2 during COVID-19 correlated with von Willebrand factor, factor VIII and D-dimer, while sACE correlated with interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1. Conclusions: sACE2 was transiently elevated in COVID-19, likely due to increased shedding from infected cells. sACE2 and sACE during COVID-19 differed in correlations with markers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, suggesting release from different cell types and/or vascular beds

Prothrombotic changes in patients with COVID-19 are associated with disease severity and mortality

Background and Aims: Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at significant risk of thrombotic complications. However, their prothrombotic state is incompletely understood. Therefore, we measured in vivo activation markers of hemostasis, plasma levels of hemostatic proteins, and functional assays of coagulation and fibrinolysis in plasma from patients with COVID-19 and determined their association with disease severity and 30-day mortality. Methods: We included 102 patients with COVID-19 receiving various levels of respiratory support admitted to general wards, intermediate units, or intensive care units and collected plasma samples shortly after hospital admission. Results: Patients with COVID-19 with higher respiratory support had increased in vivo activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis, as reflected by higher plasma levels of d-dimer, thrombin-antithrombin, and plasmin-antiplasmin complexes as compared to patients with no to minimal respiratory support and healthy controls. Moreover, the patients with COVID-19 with higher respiratory support exhibited substantial ex vivo thrombin generation and lower ex vivo fibrinolytic capacity, despite higher doses of anticoagulant therapy compared to less severely ill patients. Fibrinogen, factor VIII, and von Willebrand factor levels increased, and ADAMTS13 levels decreased with increasing respiratory support in patients with COVID-19. Low platelet count; low levels of prothrombin, antithrombin, and ADAMTS13; and high levels of von Willebrand factor were associated with short-term mortality. Conclusions: Severe COVID-19 is associated with prothrombotic changes with increased in vivo activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis, despite anticoagulant therapy

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

Maintained acute stroke admission during the first wave COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden : a register-based study

Objectives: Clinicians and researchers have addressed concerns about the negative impact of COVID-19 outbreaks on the ability of health care systems to provide timely assessment and acute therapies to patients with stroke. The aim of this study is to describe stroke care during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period the year before at an acute care hospital in Sweden. Materials and Methods: In this cohort study data were collected from March 1st to August 31st in 2019 and 2020 on all patients diagnosed with stroke and TIA and registered at Danderyd Hospital in the national quality registry (Riksstroke). Data were completed with information from the hospital record. Sweden had no lockdown during 2020. Results: During the study period in year 2019 there were 426 registered stroke patients at Danderyd hospital, compared to 403 registered stroke patients the same period during 2020 (p = 0.483). The number of minor stroke and TIA during the period in 2019 compared to 2020 were 468 versus 453 respectively (minor stroke p = 0.475 versus TIA p = 0.50). Conclusions: There were no difference in the number of patients diagnosed with stroke and TIA during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is transiently elevated in COVID-19 and correlates with specific inflammatory and endothelial markers

The main entry receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). SARS-CoV-2 interactions with ACE2 may increase ectodomain shedding but consequences for the renin-angiotensin system and pathology in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. We measured soluble ACE2 (sACE2) and sACE levels by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in 114 hospital-treated COVID-19 patients compared with 10 healthy controls; follow-up samples after four months were analyzed for 58 patients. Associations between sACE2 respectively sACE and risk factors for severe COVID-19, outcome, and inflammatory markers were investigated. Levels of sACE2 were higher in COVID-19 patients than in healthy controls, median 5.0 (interquartile range 2.8-11.8) ng/ml versus 1.4 (1.1-1.6) ng/ml, p &lt; .0001. sACE2 was higher in men than women but was not affected by other risk factors for severe COVID-19. sACE2 decreased to 2.3 (1.6-3.9) ng/ml at follow-up, p &lt; .0001, but remained higher than in healthy controls, p = .012. sACE was marginally lower during COVID-19 compared with at follow-up, 57 (45-70) ng/ml versus 72 (52-87) ng/ml, p = .008. Levels of sACE2 and sACE did not differ depending on survival or disease severity. sACE2 during COVID-19 correlated with von Willebrand factor, factor VIII and D-dimer, while sACE correlated with interleukin 6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1. Conclusions: sACE2 was transiently elevated in COVID-19, likely due to increased shedding from infected cells. sACE2 and sACE during COVID-19 differed in correlations with markers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, suggesting release from different cell types and/or vascular beds.</p

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for Stroke Recovery

Stroke is a major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression and other mood disorders after stroke. Small studies suggested that SSRIs might also promote motor recovery by direct effects on the brain. In this Cochrane review, we aimed to determine the effects of SSRIs in improving outcomes in people <12 months after stroke and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects