The effect of fluoxetine on morning blood pressure surge in patients with ischemic stroke: a prospective preliminary clinical study

Fluoxetine promotes the recovery of dysphagia and improves nutritional status and neurotrophic status in dysphagia patients after acute ischemic stroke

This study aimed to investigate the effects of fluoxetine on swallowing function, neurotrophic factors, and psychological status in patients with dysphagia after acute ischemic stroke (AIS). A total of 118 patients with dysphagia after AIS who were diagnosed and treated in our hospital from July 2020 to March 2022 were selected as the study objects with 59 cases in each group. Patients in the control group underwent routine treatment and swallowing rehabilitation without fluoxetine. Patients in the study group received routine treatment, swallowing rehabilitation, and fluoxetine treatment. The quality of life was compared according to the Generic Quality of Life Inventory-74 (CQOLI-74). Patients were followed for 90 days, and the grades were compared with the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). The total effective rate of the study group was 84.75%, which was higher than that of the control group with 62.71% (χ2 = 7.394, P < 0.05). The life quality scores of the two groups were both dramatically elevated compared to those before the treatment, and the study group had a sensibly higher life quality score than the control group (P < 0.05). The proportion of grade 4~5 in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (χ2 = 492, P < 0.05). The total incidence of adverse reactions in the control group was 5.08% (3/59), which was significantly lower than that in the study group with 11.86% (7/59) (χ2 = 1.748, P = 0.186). Fluoxetine has a significant effect on the treatment of dysphagia after AIS by enhancing the recovery of dysphagia and promoting the recovery of neurological function.

Pharmacological, non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological interventions, and their combination, for treating depression after stroke

BACKGROUND

Depression is an important morbidity associated with stroke that impacts on recovery, yet is often undetected or inadequately treated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological intervention, non-invasive brain stimulation, psychological therapy, or combinations of these to treat depression after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every two months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. We searched the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Stroke, and Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, two clinical trials registers, reference lists and conference proceedings (February 2022). We contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: 1) pharmacological interventions with placebo; 2) non-invasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation or usual care; 3) psychological therapy with usual care or attention control; 4) pharmacological intervention and psychological therapy with pharmacological intervention and usual care or attention control; 5) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care; 6) non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological therapy versus sham brain stimulation or usual care and psychological therapy; 7) pharmacological intervention and psychological therapy with placebo and psychological therapy; 8) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with placebo and non-invasive brain stimulation; and 9) non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological therapy versus non-invasive brain stimulation and usual care or attention control, with the intention of treating depression after stroke.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from included studies. We calculated mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and certainty of the evidence according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 65 trials (72 comparisons) with 5831 participants. Data were available for: 1) 20 comparisons; 2) nine comparisons; 3) 25 comparisons; 4) three comparisons; 5) 14 comparisons; and 6) one comparison. We found no trials for comparisons 7 to 9. Comparison 1: Pharmacological interventions Very low-certainty evidence from eight trials suggests pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88; P = 0.002; 8 RCTs; 1025 participants) at end of treatment and very low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.70; P = 0.0002; 6 RCTs; 511 participants) compared to placebo. More adverse events related to the central nervous system (CNS) (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.15; P = 0.008; 5 RCTs; 488 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and gastrointestinal system (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.19; P = 0.002; 4 RCTs; 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were noted in the pharmacological intervention than in the placebo group. Comparison 2: Non-invasive brain stimulation Very low-certainty evidence from two trials show that non-invasive brain stimulation had little to no effect on the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.14; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 130 participants) and the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52, 1.37; P = 0.49; 2 RCTs; 130 participants) compared to sham stimulation. Non-invasive brain stimulation resulted in no deaths. Comparison 3: Psychological therapy Very low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that psychological therapy decreased the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression at end of treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; P = 0.01; 521 participants) compared to usual care/attention control. No trials of psychological therapy reported on the outcome inadequate response to treatment. No differences in the number of deaths or adverse events were found in the psychological therapy group compared to the usual care/attention control group. Comparison 4: Pharmacological interventions with psychological therapy No trials of this combination reported on the primary outcomes. Combination therapy resulted in no deaths. Comparison 5: Pharmacological interventions with non-invasive brain stimulation Non-invasive brain stimulation with pharmacological intervention reduced the number of people meeting study criteria for depression at end of treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; P = 0.002; 3 RCTs; 392 participants; low-certainty evidence) but not the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.30; P = 0.75; 3 RCTs; 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to pharmacological therapy alone. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials suggest no difference in deaths between this combination therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.16; P = 0.93; 487 participants) compared to pharmacological therapy intervention and sham stimulation or usual care. Comparison 6: Non-invasive brain stimulation with psychological therapy No trials of this combination reported on the primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological, psychological and combination therapies can reduce the prevalence of depression while non-invasive brain stimulation had little to no effect on the prevalence of depression. Pharmacological intervention was associated with adverse events related to the CNS and the gastrointestinal tract. More research is required before recommendations can be made about the routine use of such treatments.

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.