The efficacy of integrative anti-depressive therapy on motor recovery after ischemic stroke – A randomized clinical trial

Molecular mechanisms underlying major depressive disorder and post-stroke affective disorders

Two of the most common and incapacitating mental health disorders around the world are major depressive disorder (MDD) and post-stroke depression (PSD). MDD is thought to result from abnormal connectivity between the monoaminergic, glutamatergic, GABAergic, and/or cholinergic pathways. Additional factors include the roles of hormonal, immune, ageing, as well as the influence of cellular, molecular, and epigenetics in the development of mood disorders. This complexity of factors has been anticipated by the Swiss psychiatrists Paul Kielholz and Jules Angst who introduced a multimodal treatment of MDD. Depression is the predominant mood disorder, impacting around one-third of individuals who have experienced a stroke. MDD and PSD share common underlying biological mechanisms related to the disruption of monoaminergic pathways. The major contributor to PSD is the stroke lesion location, which can involve the disruption of the serotoninergic, dopaminergic, glutamatergic, GABAergic, or cholinergic pathways. Additionally, various other disorders such as mania, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and apathy might occur post-stroke, although their prevalence is considerably lower. However, there are differences in the onset of MDD among mood disorders. Some mood disorders develop gradually and can persist for a lifetime, potentially culminating in suicide. In contrast, PSD has a rapid onset because of the severe disruption of neural pathways essential for mood behavior caused by the lesion. However, PSD might also spontaneously resolve several months after a stroke, though it is associated with higher mortality. This review also provides a brief overview of the treatments currently available in medical practice.

Effect of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors on Motor Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in improving motor outcomes after stroke. For accuracy, we only included studies in which selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were administered to patients in the recovery phase after stroke (<6 mos after stroke).

DESIGN

Meta-analyses were conducted according to the tools used to measure motor function. We searched the SCOPUS, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies, which compared motor recovery in patients who receive selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medication in the recovery phase after stroke with a control group that did not receive any selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

RESULTS

A total of 3715 publications were assessed, and nine studies met the study criteria. The group, which received selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, showed improved Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale and Barthel index scores compared with the control group. However, there was no significant difference in the modified Rankin Scale scores between the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and control groups. The incidence of adverse effects after the administration of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors did not differ from that in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in the recovery phase of stroke improved motor function without significant increase in adverse effects.

Recovery in Stroke Patients Treated With Fluoxetine Versus Placebo: A Pooled Analysis of 7,165 Patients

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a major cause of disability and death. Stroke recovery outcomes range from functional impairment to disability. This study was designed to compare the recovery results of stroke patients treated with fluoxetine to those treated with placebo.

REVIEW SUMMARY

Seventeen randomized clinical trials were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science until June 2021. Fluoxetine enhances the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score [mean difference (MD)=-0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-1.19 to -0.15)] and the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale (FMMS) score [MD=17.36, 95% CI (12.12-22.61)] at the 3-month follow up. However, the NIHSS score showed no significant difference between the 2 groups at 2 weeks [MD=-0.32, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.07)] or at 6 months [MD=-0.17, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.14)]. Fluoxetine-treated and placebo-treated patients had the same overall impact on FMMS scores at 1 month ( P =0.41). Barthel index showed no significant difference between the 2 arms at 3 months ( P =0.21) or 6 months ( P =0.68). Fluoxetine-treated patients were at a higher risk of broken bone [risk ratios (RR)=2.30, 95% CI (1.59-3.32)] and hyponatremia [RR=2.12, 95% CI (1.19-3.76)], and at lower risk of new depression [RR=0.72, 95% CI (0.61-0.84)] in comparison with placebo.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of fluoxetine on the NIHSS and FMMS is likely to take time to emerge and is expected to be transient. The Barthel index score did not differ between the fluoxetine and placebo groups. The use of fluoxetine increased the incidence of hyponatremia and bone fractures while decreasing the risk of new-onset depression.

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.