Interventions for treating depression after stroke

Background: Depression is an important consequence of stroke that impacts on recovery yet is often not detected or inadequately treated. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. Objectives: To determine whether pharmaceutical, psychological, or electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) of depression in patients with stroke can improve outcome. Search strategy: We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group (last searched October 2007) and the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group (last searched February 2008). In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), CINAHL (1982 to May 2006), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2006) and other databases. We also searched reference lists, clinical trials registers, conference proceedings and dissertation abstracts, and contacted authors, researchers and pharmaceutical companies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmaceutical agents with placebo, or various forms of psychotherapy or ECT with standard care (or attention control), in patients with stroke, with the intention of treating depression. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality; three review authors extracted, cross-checked and entered data. Primary analyses were the prevalence of diagnosable depressive disorder at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included depression scores on standard scales, physical function, death, recurrent stroke and adverse effects. Main results: Sixteen trials (17 interventions), with 1655 participants, were included in the review. Data were available for 13 pharmaceutical agents, and four trials of psychotherapy. There were no trials of ECT. The analyses were complicated by the lack of standardised diagnostic and outcome criteria, and differing analytic methods. There was some evidence of benefit of pharmacotherapy in terms of a complete remission of depression and a reduction (improvement) in scores on depression rating scales, but there was also evidence of an associated increase in adverse events. There was no evidence of benefit of psychotherapy. Authors' conclusions: A small but significant effect of pharmacotherapy (not psychotherapy) on treating depression and reducing depressive symptoms was found, as was a significant increase in adverse events. More research is required before recommendations can be made about the routine use of such treatments

Comparing the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of a new community in-reach rehabilitation service with the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of an established hospital-based rehabilitation service for older people: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with microcost and qualitative analysis – the Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) study

Background: Older people represent a significant proportion of patients admitted to hospital as a medical emergency. Compared with the care of younger patients, their care is more challenging, their stay in hospital is much longer, their risk of hospital-acquired problems is much higher and their 28-day readmission rate is much greater. Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness, microcosts and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation And Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service in patients aged ≥ 70 years. Methods: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study and parallel qualitative appraisal was undertaken in a large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Participants were individually randomised to the intervention (CIRACT service) or standard care (THB-Rehab service). The primary outcome was hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes were readmission within 28 and 91 days post discharge and super spell bed-days (total time in NHS care), functional ability, comorbidity and health-related quality of life, all measured at day 91, together with the microcosts and cost-effectiveness of the two services. A qualitative appraisal provided an explanatory understanding of the organisation, delivery and experience of the CIRACT service from the perspective of key stakeholders and patients. Results: In total, 250 participants were randomised (n = 125 CIRACT service, n = 125 THB-Rehab service). There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT service and the THB-Rehab service (median 8 vs. 9 days). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes. The cost of delivering the CIRACT service and the THB-Rehab service, as determined from the microcost analysis, was £302 and £303 per patient respectively. The overall mean costs (including NHS and personal social service costs) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services calculated from the Client Service Receipt Inventory were £3744 and £3603 respectively [mean cost difference £144, 95% confidence interval –£1645 to £1934] and the mean quality-adjusted life-years for the CIRACT service were 0.846 and for the THB-Rehab service were 0.806. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was £2022 per quality-adjusted life-year. Although the CIRACT service was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it, the emergent configuration of the service working across organisational and occupational boundaries was not easily incorporated by the current established community services. Conclusions: The CIRACT service did not reduce hospital length of stay or short-term readmission rates compared with the standard THB-Rehab service, although it was highly regarded by those who were most involved with it. The estimated ICER appears cost-effective although it is subject to much uncertainty, as shown by points spanning all four quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. Microcosting work-sampling methodology provides a useful method to estimate the cost of service provision. Limitations in sample size, which may have excluded a smaller reduction in length of stay, and lack of blinding, which may have introduced some cross-contamination between the two groups, must be recognised. Reducing hospital length of stay and hospital readmissions remains a priority for the NHS. Further studies are necessary, which should be powered with larger sample sizes and use cluster randomisation (to reduce bias) but, more importantly, should include a more integrated community health-care model as part of the CIRACT team

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of clinical pathways on length of stay, hospital costs and patient outcomes

Background. To perform a systematic review about the effect of using clinical pathways on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs and patient outcomes. To provide a framework for local healthcare organisations considering the effectiveness of clinical pathways as a patient management strategy. Methods. As participants, we considered hospitalized children and adults of every age and indication whose treatment involved the management strategy "clinical pathways". We include only randomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT), not restricted by language or country of publication. Single measures of continuous and dichotomous study outcomes were extracted from each study. Separate analyses were done in order to compare effects of clinical pathways on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs and patient outcomes. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with untransformed and log transformed outcomes. Results. In total 17 trials met inclusion criteria, representing 4,070 patients. The quality of the included studies was moderate and studies reporting economic data can be described by a very limited scope of evaluation. In general, the majority of studies reporting economic data (LOS and hospital costs) showed a positive impact. Out of 16 reporting effects on LOS, 12 found significant shortening. Furthermore, in a subgroup-analysis, clinical pathways for invasive procedures showed a stronger LOS reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.5 days versus -0.8 days)). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospitals or in-hospital complications. The overall Odds Ratio (OR) for re-admission was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.57 to 2.08) and for in-hospital complications, the overall OR was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.49 to 1.0). Six studies examined costs, and four showed significantly lower costs for the pathway group. However, heterogeneity between studies reporting on LOS and cost effects was substantial. Conclusion. As a result of the relatively small number of studies meeting inclusion criteria, this evidence base is not conclusive enough to provide a replicable framework for all pathway strategies. Considering the clinical areas for implementation, clinical pathways seem to be effective especially for invasive care. When implementing clinical pathways, the decision makers need to consider the benefits and costs under different circumstances (e.g. market forces)