Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke: the FOCUS RCT

A comprehensive overview of post-stroke depression treatment options

Nearly one-third of all stroke patients develop depression at any time after a stroke, and its presence is associated with unfavorable outcomes. This narrative review aims to provide a synopsis of possible pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment modalities for post-stroke depression (PSD). Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in treating the symptoms of this clinical condition. The treatment of PSD has been recently enhanced by innovative approaches, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, virtual reality, telehealth, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and non-conventional therapies, which might improve depression treatment in stroke survivors. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of the effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke

BACKGROUND

Three large randomized controlled trials of fluoxetine for stroke recovery have been performed. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDM) on the combined data.

METHODS

Fixed effects meta-analyses were performed on the combined data set, for the primary outcome (modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 6 months), and secondary outcomes common to the individual trials. As a sensitivity analysis, summary statistics from each trial were created and combined.

FINDINGS

The three trials recruited a combined total of 5907 people (mean age 69.5 years (SD 12.3), 2256 (38%) females, 2-15 days post-stroke) from Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Sweden, and Vietnam; and randomized them to fluoxetine 20 mg daily or matching placebo for 6 months. Data on 5833 (98.75%) were available at 6 months. The adjusted ordinal comparison of mRS was similar in the two groups (common OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05, p = 0.37). There were no statistically significant interactions between the minimization variables (baseline probability of being alive and independent at 6 months, time to treatment, motor deficit, or aphasia) and pre-specified subgroups (including age, pathological type, inability to assess mood, proxy or patient consent, baseline depression, country). Fluoxetine increased seizure risk (2.64% vs 1.8%, p = 0.03), falls with injury (6.26% vs 4.51%, p = 0.03), fractures (3.15% vs 1.39%, p < 0.0001) and hyponatremia (1.22% vs 0.61%, p = 0.01) but reduced new depression (10.05% vs 13.42%, p < 0.0001). At 12 months, there was no difference in adjusted mRS (n = 5760; common OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07). Sensitivity analyses gave the same results.

INTERPRETATION

Fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months did not improve functional recovery. It increased seizures, falls with injury, and bone fractures but reduced depression frequency at 6 months.

Advancement of epigenetics in stroke

A wide plethora of intervention procedures, tissue plasminogen activators, mechanical thrombectomy, and several neuroprotective drugs were reported in stroke research over the last decennium. However, against this vivid background of newly emerging pieces of evidence, there is little to no advancement in the overall functional outcomes. With the advancement of epigenetic tools and technologies associated with intervention medicine, stroke research has entered a new fertile. The stroke involves an overabundance of inflammatory responses arising in part due to the body's immune response to brain injury. Neuroinflammation contributes to significant neuronal cell death and the development of functional impairment and even death in stroke patients. Recent studies have demonstrated that epigenetics plays a key role in post-stroke conditions, leading to inflammatory responses and alteration of the microenvironment within the injured tissue. In this review, we summarize the progress of epigenetics which provides an overview of recent advancements on the emerging key role of secondary brain injury in stroke. We also discuss potential epigenetic therapies related to clinical practice.

Reaching a Tipping Point for Neurorehabilitation Research: Obstacles and Opportunities in Trial Design, Description, and Pooled Analysis

The record-breaking pace of COVID-19 vaccine development and implementation depended heavily on collaboration among academic, government, and commercial stakeholders, especially through data-sharing and robust multicenter trials. Collaborative efforts have not been as fruitful in fields such as neurorehabilitation, where non-pharmacological interventions play a much larger role. Barriers to translating scientific advancements into clinical practice in neurorehabilitation include pervasively small study sizes, exacerbated by limited funding for non-pharmacological multicenter clinical trials; difficulty standardizing—and adequately describing—non-pharmacological interventions; and a lack of incentives for individual patient-level data-sharing. These barriers prevent reliable meta-analysis of non-pharmacological clinical studies in neurorehabilitation. This point-of-view will highlight these challenges as well as suggest practical steps that may be taken to improve the neurorehabilitation pipeline between evidence and implementation.

Safety and Efficacy of SSRIs in Improving Poststroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Several studies investigated the role of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in improving poststroke recovery; thus, we have decided to conduct this systematic review and meta‐analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of SSRIs in poststroke recovery.

Methods and Results

In this meta‐analysis we searched the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The studies were included if they were placebo‐controlled trials in design and reported SSRIs’ effects on poststroke depression, anxiety, disability, dependence, motor abilities, and cognitive functions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials. The search yielded 44 articles that included 16 164 patients, and about half of the participants were treated with SSRIs. Our results showed that SSRIs had a significant effect on preventing depression (weighted mean difference [WMD], −7.05 [95% CI, −11.78 to −2.31]), treating depression according to the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (WMD, −1.45 [95% CI, −2.77 to −0.14]), anxiety (relative risk, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.09–0.61]), dependence (WMD, 8.86 [95% CI, 1.23–16.48]), motor abilities according to National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (WMD, −0.79 [95% CI, −1.42 to −0.15]), and cognitive functions (WMD, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.12–1.89]). On the other hand, no significant effect of SSRIs on disability was observed. Additionally, we found that treating with SSRIs increased the risk of seizures (relative risk, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.13–1.83]), whereas there was no difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms or bleeding between SSRIs and a placebo.

Conclusions

Our study showed that SSRIs are effective in preventing and treating depression, and improving anxiety, motor function, cognitive function, and dependence in patients after stroke. These benefits were only reproducible with the citalopram subanalysis but not fluoxetine. Further well‐conducted placebo‐controlled trials are needed to investigate the safety and efficacy of citalopram among patients after stroke.

Registration

URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021285766.

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.

Comprehensive review of statistical methods for analysing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used as primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published by the UK's Health Technology Assessment (HTA) journal (1997-2020)

OBJECTIVES

To identify how frequently patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used as primary and/or secondary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to summarise what statistical methods are used for the analysis of PROs.

DESIGN

Comprehensive review.

SETTING

RCTs funded and published by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY

HTA reports of RCTs published between January 1997 and December 2020 were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information relating to PRO use and analysis methods was extracted.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The frequency of using PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes; statistical methods that were used for the analysis of PROs as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In this review, 37.6% (114/303) of trials used PROs as primary outcomes, and 82.8% (251/303) of trials used PROs as secondary outcomes from 303 NIHR HTA reports of RCTs. In the 114 RCTs where the PRO was the primary outcome, the most used PRO was the Short-Form 36 (8/114); the most popular methods for multivariable analysis were linear mixed model (45/114), linear regression (29/114) and analysis of covariance (13/114); logistic regression was applied for binary and ordinal outcomes in 14/114 trials; and the repeated measures analysis was used in 39/114 trials.

CONCLUSION

The majority of trials used PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes. Conventional methods such as linear regression are widely used, despite the potential violation of their assumptions. In recent years, there is an increasing trend of using complex models (eg, with mixed effects). Statistical methods developed to address these violations when analysing PROs, such as beta-binomial regression, are not routinely used in practice. Future research will focus on evaluating available statistical methods for the analysis of PROs.

Twelve-Month Outcomes of the AFFINITY Trial of Fluoxetine for Functional Recovery After Acute Stroke: AFFINITY Trial Steering Committee on Behalf of the AFFINITY Trial Collaboration

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The AFFINITY trial (Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery) reported that 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 seizures. After trial medication was ceased at 6 months, survivors were followed to 12 months post-randomization. This preplanned secondary analysis aimed to determine any sustained or delayed effects of fluoxetine at 12 months post-randomization.

METHODS

AFFINITY was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults (n=1280) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke in the previous 2 to 15 days and persisting neurological deficit who were recruited at 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (4), and Vietnam (10) between 2013 and 2019. Participants were randomized to oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily (n=642) or matching placebo (n=638) for 6 months and followed until 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome was function, measured by the modified Rankin Scale, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes for these analyses included measures of the modified Rankin Scale, mood, cognition, overall health status, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and safety at 12 months.

RESULTS

Adherence to trial medication was for a mean 167 (SD 48) days and similar between randomized groups. At 12 months, the distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.46). Compared with placebo, patients allocated fluoxetine had fewer recurrent ischemic strokes (14 [2.18%] versus 29 [4.55%]; P=0.02), and no longer had significantly more falls (27 [4.21%] versus 15 [2.35%]; P=0.08), bone fractures (23 [3.58%] versus 11 [1.72%]; P=0.05), or seizures (11 [1.71%] versus 8 [1.25%]; P=0.64) at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke had no delayed or sustained effect on functional outcome, falls, bone fractures, or seizures at 12 months poststroke. The lower rate of recurrent ischemic stroke in the fluoxetine group is most likely a chance finding. Registration: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000774921.

Differences in outcomes following an intensive upper-limb rehabilitation program for patients with common central nervous system-acting drug prescriptions

Background: Difficulty using the upper-limb is a major barrier to independence for many patients post-stroke or brain injury. High dose rehabilitation can result in clinically significant improvements in function even years after the incident; however, there is still high variability in patient responsiveness to such interventions that cannot be explained by age, sex, or time since stroke. Methods: This retrospective study investigated whether patients prescribed certain classes of central nervous system-acting drugs—γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonists, antiepileptics, and antidepressants—differed in their outcomes on the three-week intensive Queen Square Upper-Limb program. For 277 stroke or brain injury patients (167 male, median age 52 years (IQR: 21), median time since incident 20 months (IQR: 26)) upper-limb impairment and activity was assessed at admission to the program and at six months post-discharge, using the upper limb component of the Fugl-Meyer, Action Research Arm Test, and Chedoke Arm and Hand Activity Inventory. Drug prescriptions were obtained from primary care physicians at referral. Specification curve analysis was used to protect against selective reporting results and add robustness to the conclusions of this retrospective study. Results: Patients with GABA agonist prescriptions had significantly worse upper-limb scores at admission but no evidence for a significant difference in program-induced improvements was found. Additionally, no evidence of significant differences in patients with or without antiepileptic drug prescriptions on either admission to, or improvement on, the program was found in this study. Although no evidence was found for differences in admission scores, patients with antidepressant prescriptions experienced reduced improvement in upper-limb function, even when accounting for anxiety and depression scores. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that, when prescribed typically, there was no evidence that patients prescribed GABA agonists performed worse on this high-intensity rehabilitation program. Patients prescribed antidepressants, however, performed poorer than expected on the Queen Square Upper-Limb rehabilitation program. While the reasons for these differences are unclear, identifying these patients prior to admission may allow for better accommodation of differences in their rehabilitation needs.

The 2020 Yearbook of Neurorestoratology

COVID-19 has been an emerging and rapidly evolving risk to people of the world in 2020. Facing this dangerous situation, many colleagues in Neurorestoratology did their best to avoid infection if themselves and their patients, and continued their work in the research areas described in the 2020 Yearbook of Neurorestoratology. Neurorestorative achievements and progress during 2020 includes recent findings on the pathogenesis of neurological diseases, neurorestorative mechanisms and clinical therapeutic achievements. Therapeutic progress during this year included advances in cell therapies, neurostimulation/neuromodulation, brain-computer interface (BCI), and pharmaceutical neurorestorative therapies, which improved neurological functions and quality of life for patients. Four clinical guidelines or standards of Neurorestoratology were published in 2020. Milestone examples include: 1) a multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olfactory ensheathing cell treatment of chronic stroke showed functional improvements; 2) patients after transhumeral amputation experienced increased sensory acuity and had improved effectiveness in work and other activities of daily life using a prosthesis; 3) a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis used a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based BCI to achieve accurate and speedy computer input; 4) a patient with complete chronic spinal cord injury recovered both motor function and touch sensation with a BCI and restored ability to detect objects by touch and several sensorimotor functions. We hope these achievements motivate and encourage other scientists and physicians to increase neurorestorative research and its therapeutic applications.