Pharmaceutical interventions for emotionalism after stroke

Post-Stroke Brain Health Monitoring and Optimization: A Narrative Review

Significant advancements have been made in recent years in the acute treatment and secondary prevention of stroke. However, a large proportion of stroke survivors will go on to have enduring physical, cognitive, and psychological disabilities from suboptimal post-stroke brain health. Impaired brain health following stroke thus warrants increased attention from clinicians and researchers alike. In this narrative review based on an open timeframe search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, we define post-stroke brain health and appraise the body of research focused on modifiable vascular, lifestyle, and psychosocial factors for optimizing post-stroke brain health. In addition, we make clinical recommendations for the monitoring and management of post-stroke brain health at major post-stroke transition points centered on four key intertwined domains: cognition, psychosocial health, physical functioning, and global vascular health. Finally, we discuss potential future work in the field of post-stroke brain health, including the use of remote monitoring and interventions, neuromodulation, multi-morbidity interventions, enriched environments, and the need to address inequities in post-stroke brain health. As post-stroke brain health is a relatively new, rapidly evolving, and broad clinical and research field, this narrative review aims to identify and summarize the evidence base to help clinicians and researchers tailor their own approach to integrating post-stroke brain health into their practices.

Pharmaceutical interventions for emotionalism after stroke

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants may be useful in the treatment of abnormal crying associated with stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and last updated in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmaceutical treatment in people with emotionalism after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and three trials registers (May 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing psychotropic medication to placebo in people with stroke and emotionalism (also known as emotional lability, pathological crying or laughing, emotional incontinence, involuntary emotional expression disorder, and pseudobulbar affect).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from all included trials, and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. The primary emotionalism measures were the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in abnormal emotional behaviour at the end of treatment, improved score on the Center for Neurologic Study - Lability Scale (CNS-LS) or Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC), or diminished tearfulness.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for this update. We included seven trials with a total of 239 participants. Two trials had a cross-over design, but outcome data were not available from the first phase (precross-over) in an appropriate format for inclusion as a parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). Thus, the results of the review are based on five trials with a total of 213 participants. It is uncertain whether fluoxetine increases the number of people who have a 50% reduction in emotionalism when compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.77; P = 0.02; 1 trial, 19 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. Sertraline may lead to little to no difference in Center for Neurologic Study - Lability Scale (CNS-LS) scores and Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) scores when compared to placebo (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.50; P = 0.12; 1 trial, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antidepressants probably increase the number of people who experience a reduction in tearfulness (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 3 trials, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials were found that evaluated the impact of other pharmaceutical interventions. Only two trial authors systematically recorded and reported adverse events, resulting in limited data on the potential harms of treatment. Six trials reported death as an adverse event and found no difference between the groups (antidepressants versus placebo) in the number of deaths reported (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.50; P = 0.61; 172 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This review provides very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants may reduce the frequency and severity of emotionalism. The included trials were small and had some degree of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants may reduce the frequency and severity of crying or laughing episodes when compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. Our conclusions must be qualified by several methodological deficiencies in the trials and interpreted with caution despite the effect being very large. The effect does not seem specific to one drug or class of drugs. More reliable data are required before appropriate conclusions can be made about the treatment of post-stroke emotionalism. Future trialists investigating the effect of antidepressants in people with emotionalism after stroke should consider developing and using a standardised method to diagnose emotionalism, determine severity, and assess change over time; provide treatment for a sufficient duration and follow-up to better assess rates of relapse or maintenance; and include careful assessment and complete reporting of adverse events.

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.

Psychometric evaluation of a newly developed measure of emotionalism after stroke (TEARS-Q)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, psychometrically, a new measure of tearful emotionalism following stroke: Testing Emotionalism After Recent Stroke - Questionnaire (TEARS-Q).

SETTING

Acute stroke units based in nine Scottish hospitals, in the context of a longitudinal cohort study of post-stroke emotionalism.

SUBJECTS

A total of 224 clinically diagnosed stroke survivors recruited between October 1st 2015 and September 30th 2018, within 2 weeks of their stroke.

MEASURES

The measure was the self-report questionnaire TEARS-Q, constructed based on post-stroke tearful emotionalism diagnostic criteria: (i) increased tearfulness, (ii) crying comes on suddenly, with no warning (iii) crying not under usual social control and (iv) crying episodes occur at least once weekly. The reference standard was presence/absence of emotionalism on a diagnostic, semi-structured post-stroke emotionalism interview, administered at the same assessment point. Stroke, mood, cognition and functional outcome measures were also completed by the subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 97 subjects were female, with a mean age 65.1 years. 205 subjects had sustained ischaemic stroke. 61 subjects were classified as mild stroke. TEARS-Q was internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha 0.87). TEARS-Q scores readily discriminated the two groups, with a mean difference of -7.18, 95% CI (-8.07 to -6.29). A cut off score of 2 on TEARS-Q correctly identified 53 of the 61 stroke survivors with tearful emotionalism and 140 of the 156 stroke survivors without tearful emotionalism. One factor accounted for 57% of the item response variance, and all eight TEARS-Q items acceptably discriminated underlying emotionalism.

CONCLUSION

TEARS-Q accurately diagnoses tearful emotionalism after stroke.

Are pharmacological interventions clinically useful to treat emotionalism after stroke? A Cochrane Review update summary with commentary

BACKGROUND

Emotionalism, i.e. uncontrolled episodes of crying (or less commonly laughing) post stroke that are not triggered by situations that would have previously provoked such behavior occur in stroke survivors, may persist in some, and can be socially embarrassing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether pharmacological interventions are beneficial, acceptable, and safe in the treatment of emotionalism post stroke.

METHODS

A Cochrane review by Allida et al. was summarized with comments.

RESULTS

From a total of 7 eligible trials with a total of 239 participants included in the review, five with 213 participants could be used for data extraction. Very low to moderate quality evidence pointed to some beneficial effects of antidepressants in the treatment of emotionalism after stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

The available data suggest that antidepressants may reduce the frequency and severity of crying or laughing episodes in stroke survivors with emotionalism.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery

BACKGROUND

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. The 2012 Cochrane Review of SSRIs for stroke recovery demonstrated positive effects on recovery, even in people who were not depressed at randomisation. A large trial of fluoxetine for stroke recovery (fluoxetine versus placebo under supervision) has recently been published, and it is now appropriate to update the evidence.

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

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 16 July 2018), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, July 2018), MEDLINE (1946 to July 2018), Embase (1974 to July 2018), CINAHL (1982 July 2018), PsycINFO (1985 to July 2018), AMED (1985 to July 2018), and PsycBITE March 2012 to July 2018). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke survivors at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. To be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data from each trial. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 63 eligible trials recruiting 9168 participants, most of which provided data only at end of treatment and not at follow-up. There was a wide age range. About half the trials required participants to have depression to enter the trial. The duration, drug, and dose varied between trials. Only three of the included trials were at low risk of bias across the key 'Risk of bias' domains. A meta-analysis of these three trials found little or no effect of SSRI on either disability score: SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; P = 0.75; 2 studies, 2829 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or independence: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; P = 0.99; 3 studies, 3249 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded both these outcomes for imprecision. SSRIs reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.11 lower, 0.19 lower to 0.04 lower; 2 trials, 2861 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was a higher observed number of gastrointestinal side effects among participants treated with SSRIs compared to placebo (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.76; P = 0.05; 2 studies, 148 participants; moderate-quality evidence), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). For seizures there was no evidence of a substantial difference. When we included all trials in a sensitivity analysis, irrespective of risk of bias, SSRIs appeared to reduce disability scores but not dependence. One large trial (FOCUS) dominated the results. We identified several ongoing trials, including two large trials that together will recruit more than 3000 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no reliable evidence that SSRIs should be used routinely to promote recovery after stroke. Meta-analysis of the trials at low risk of bias indicate that SSRIs do not improve recovery from stroke. We identified potential improvements in disability only in the analyses which included trials at high risk of bias. A further meta-analysis of large ongoing trials will be required to determine the generalisability of these findings.