Efficacy of sertraline for post-stroke depression: A systematic review protocol of randomized controlled trial

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.

Natural Products for the Treatment of Post-stroke Depression

Post-stroke depression (PSD) is the most frequent and important neuropsychiatric consequence of stroke. It is strongly associated with exacerbated deterioration of functional recovery, physical and cognitive recoveries, and quality of life. However, its mechanism is remarkably complicated, including the neurotransmitters hypothesis (which consists of a monoaminergic hypothesis and glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity hypothesis), inflammation hypothesis, dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and neurotrophic hypothesis and neuroplasticity. So far, the underlying pathogenesis of PSD has not been clearly defined yet. At present, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used as the first-line drugs to treat patients with PSD. Additionally, more than SSRIs, a majority of the current antidepressants complied with multiple side effects, which limits their clinical application. Currently, a wide variety of studies revealed the therapeutic potential of natural products in the management of several diseases, especially PSD, with minor side effects. Accordingly, in our present review, we aim to summarize the therapeutic targets of these compounds and their potential role in-clinic therapy for patients with PSD.

Eslicarbazepine acetate in post-stroke epilepsy: Clinical practice evidence from Euro-Esli

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) in patients included in the Euro‐Esli study who had focal seizures associated with post‐stroke epilepsy (PSE).

Materials and Methods

Euro‐Esli was a pooled analysis of 14 European clinical practice studies. Effectiveness assessments (evaluated after 3, 6 and 12 months of ESL treatment and at final follow‐up [“last visit”]) included rates of response (≥50% seizure frequency reduction), seizure freedom (no seizures since at least the prior visit) and retention. Safety/tolerability was assessed throughout ESL treatment by evaluating adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation due to AEs. A post hoc analysis was conducted of patients with PSE versus patients without PSE (“non‐PSE”).

Results

Of 1656 patients included in the analysis, 76 (4.6%) had PSE and 1580 (95.4%) had non‐PSE. Compared with non‐PSE patients, PSE patients were significantly older, had significantly shorter epilepsy duration, significantly lower total baseline seizure frequency, and were treated with significantly fewer prior and concomitant antiepileptic drugs (P < .001 for all). At the last visit, the responder rate was significantly higher in PSE versus non‐PSE patients (72.9% vs 60.6%; P = .040), as was the seizure freedom rate (48.6% vs 31.7%; P = .003). After 12 months, retention was significantly higher in PSE versus non‐PSE patients (87.8% vs 77.4%; P = .035). The incidence of AEs was similar for PSE versus non‐PSE patients (36.0% vs 35.8%; P = .966).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that ESL may be an effective and well‐tolerated treatment option for patients with focal seizures due to PSE.