Fluoxetine improves the quality of life in patients with poststroke emotional disturbances

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.

An updated review on prediction and preventive treatment of post-stroke depression

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke depression (PSD), one of the most common complications following stroke, affects approximately one-third of stroke patients and is significantly associated with increased disability and mortality as well as decreased quality of life, which makes it an important public health concern. Treatment of PSD significantly ameliorates depressive symptoms and improves the prognosis of stroke.

AREAS COVERED

The authors discuss the critical aspects of the clinical application of prediction and preventive treatment of PSD. Then, the authors update the biological factors associated with the onset of PSD. Furthermore, they summarize the recent progress in pharmacological preventive treatment in clinical trials and propose potential treatment targets. The authors also discuss the current roadblocks in the preventive treatment of PSD. Finally, the authors put postulate potential directions for future studies so as to discover accurate predictors and provide individualized preventive treatment.

EXPERT OPINION

Sorting out high-risk PSD patients using reliable predictors will greatly assist PSD management. Indeed, some predictors not only predict the incidence of PSD but also predict prognosis, which indicates that they might also aid the development of an individualized treatment scheme. Preventive application of antidepressants may also be considered.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Depression is an important morbidity associated with stroke that impacts on recovery yet often undetected or inadequately treated. This is an update and expansion of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective • To determine whether pharmacological therapy, non-invasive brain stimulation, psychological therapy, or combinations of these interventions reduce the prevalence of diagnosable depression after stroke Secondary objectives • To determine whether pharmacological therapy, non-invasive brain stimulation, psychological therapy, or combinations of these interventions reduce levels of depressive symptoms, improve physical and neurological function and health-related quality of life, and reduce dependency after stroke • To assess the safety of and adherence to such treatments SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Stroke and Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis (last searched August 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to August 2018), Embase (1980 to August 2018), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Alllied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to August 2018), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2018), and Web of Science (2002 to August 2018). We also searched reference lists, clinical trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) to August 2018; ClinicalTrials.gov to August 2018), and conference proceedings, and we contacted study authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing (1) pharmacological interventions with placebo; (2) one of various forms of non-invasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation or usual care; (3) one of various forms of psychological therapy with usual care and/or attention control; (4) pharmacological intervention and various forms of psychological therapy with pharmacological intervention and usual care and/or attention control; (5) non-invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention with pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care; (6) pharmacological intervention and one of various forms of psychological therapy with placebo and psychological therapy; (7) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with placebo plus non-invasive brain stimulation; (8) non-invasive brain stimulation and one of various forms of psychological therapy versus non-invasive brain stimulation plus usual care and/or attention control; and (9) non-invasive brain stimulation and one of various forms of psychological therapy versus sham brain stimulation or usual care plus psychological therapy, 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 all 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 49 trials (56 comparisons) with 3342 participants. Data were available for: (1) pharmacological interventions with placebo (with 20 pharmacological comparisons); (2) one of various forms of non-invasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation or usual care (with eight non-invasive brain stimulation comparisons); (3) one of various forms of psychological therapy with usual care and/or attention control (with 16 psychological therapy comparisons); (4) pharmacological intervention and various forms of psychological therapy with pharmacological intervention and usual care and/or attention control (with two comparisons); and (5) non-invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention with pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care (with 10 comparisons). We found no trials for the following comparisons: (6) pharmacological intervention and various forms of psychological therapy interventions versus placebo and psychological therapy; (7) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation versus placebo plus non-invasive brain stimulation; (8) non-invasive brain stimulation and one of various forms of psychological therapy versus non-invasive brain stimulation plus usual care and/or attention control; and (9) non-invasive brain stimulation and one of various forms of psychological therapy versus sham brain stimulation or usual care plus psychological therapy. Treatment effects observed: very low-certainty evidence from eight trials suggests that pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people meeting study criteria for depression (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88; 1025 participants) at end of treatment, and very low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people with less than 50% reduction in depression scale scores at end of treatment (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 511 participants) compared to placebo. No trials of non-invasive brain stimulation reported on meeting study criteria for depression at end of treatment. Only one trial of non-invasive brain stimulation reported on the outcome <50% reduction in depression scale scores; thus, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis for this outcome. 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; 521 participants) compared to usual care/attention control. No trials of combination therapies reported on the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression at end of treatment. Only one trial of combination (non-invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention) therapy reported <50% reduction in depression scale scores at end of treatment. Thus, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis for this outcome. Five trials reported adverse events related to the central nervous system (CNS) and noted significant harm in the pharmacological interventions group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.15; 488 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Four trials found significant gastrointestinal adverse events in the pharmacological interventions group (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.19; 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to the placebo group. No significant deaths or adverse events were found in the psychological therapy group compared to the usual care/attention control group. Non-invasive brain stimulation interventions and combination therapies resulted in no deaths.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological or psychological therapies can reduce the prevalence of depression. This very low-certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological therapy, psychological therapy, non-invasive brain stimulation, and combined interventions can reduce depressive symptoms. 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.

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.

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 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pharmaceutical treatment reduces the frequency of emotional displays in people with emotionalism after stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the trial register of Cochrane Stroke (last searched May 2018). In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; to May 2018), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2018), Embase (1980 to 14 May 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 14 May 2018), PsycINFO (1967 to 14 May 2018), BIOSIS Previews (2002 to 14 May 2018), Web of Science (2002 to 14 May 2018), WHO ICTRP (to 14 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 May 2018), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (to 14 May 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

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 studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from all included studies, and used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence. 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. 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 Center for Neurologic Study - Lability Scale (CNS-LS), Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) or diminished tearfulness.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials with a total of 239 participants. Two trials were of cross-over design, and 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 213 participants. Treatment effects were observed on the following primary endpoints of emotionalism: There is very low quality of evidence from one small RCT that antidepressants increased the number of people who had 50% reduction in emotionalism (RR 16.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 253.40; 19 participants) and low quality evidence from one RCT of improved scores on Center for Neurologic Study - Lability Scale (CNS-LS) and Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) with antidepressants (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.19; 28 participants). There was moderate quality evidence from three RCTS that they increased the number of people who had a reduction in tearfulness (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.71; 164 participants); and low quality evidence from one RCT of improved scores on the Pathological Laughter and Crying Scale (PLCS) (MD 8.40, 95% CI 11.56 to 5.24; 28 participants).Six trials reported adverse events (death) and found no difference between the groups in death (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.50; 6 RCTs, 172 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants may reduce the frequency and severity of crying or laughing episodes based on very low quality evidence. Our conclusions must be qualified by several methodological deficiencies in the studies 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.

The impact of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on the risk of intracranial haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Observational studies have suggested increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH) in patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We sought to clarify the impact of SSRIs on ICrH, accounting for study methodology.

Patients and methods

A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 1960 to December 2017 identified studies comparing SSRIs with control. The outcomes (first-ever and recurrent ICrH) were meta-analysed using a random effects model.

Results

Twenty-four observational studies and three randomised trials were available for meta-analysis, totalling 4,844,090 patient-years of follow-up. Those receiving SSRIs were more likely to be female (p = 0.01) and have depression (p < 0.001). Compared to controls, SSRI users had a significantly increased risk of ICrH (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95%CI 1.11-1.42). Although SSRI use was associated with increased ICrH risk in those without previous ICrH (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.15-1.48), this was not the case in those with previous ICrH (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.83-1.09). Sensitivity analysis according to the bleeding definition reported demonstrated that although 'haemorrhagic stroke' was associated with SSRIs (RR 1.40, 95%CI 1.13-1.72), intracerebral haemorrhage was not (RR 1.11, 95%CI 0.86-1.42). Additional sensitivity analyses demonstrated a stronger association between SSRIs and ICrH in studies with a high (p < 0.001) compared to low risk of bias (p = 0.09) and with retrospective (p < 0.001) compared to prospective (p=0.31) study designs.

Discussion

Although SSRIs are associated with an increased risk of ICrH, the association is partly accounted for by important biases and other methodological limitations in the available observational data.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest there is insufficient high-quality data to advise restriction of SSRIs because of concern regarding ICrH risk.

Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) and Stroke

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The interest in SSRIs after stroke has increased in the past few years, with better knowledge of post-stroke depression and with the demonstrated capacity of some SSRIs to act on the functional recovery of non-depressed subjects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Arguments for the action of SSRIs in favour of post-stroke neurological function recovery have improved through new elements: basic science and preclinical data, positive clinical trials and repeated series of stroke patient meta-analysis, and confirmation of favourable safety conditions in post-stroke patients. Global coherence is appearing, showing that SSRIs improve stroke recovery in non-depressed patients when given for 3 months after the stroke, with highly favourable safety conditions and a favourable benefit/risk ratio. Large series are still needed.

Lack of functional remission in Cushing's syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Hypercortisolism leads to severe clinical consequences persisting after the onset of remission. These physical sequelae of cortisol exposure are known to profoundly impact the patient's quality of life. As psychological factors may be correlated with this quality of life, our objective was to determine the specific weight of psychological determinants of quality of life in patients in remission from hypercortisolism.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In an observational study, 63 patients with hypercortisolism in remission were asked to complete exhaustive self-administered questionnaires including quality of life (WHOQoL-BREF and Cushing QoL), depression, anxiety, self-esteem, body image, and coping scales. Multivariate analyses were performed. Psychological variables relevant to the model were: anxiety, depression, self-esteem, body image, and positive thinking dimension of the Brief-COPE. Cortisol deficiency was defined as a potential confounder.

RESULTS

The median time since remission was 3 years. Patients had significantly lower quality of life and body satisfaction score than the French population and patients with chronic diseases. Depression significantly impaired all WHOQoL and Cushing QoL domains. A low body satisfaction score significantly impaired social relationships quality of life score. In total, 42.9% of patients still needed working arrangements, 19% had disability or cessation of work.

CONCLUSION

Patients in biological remission of hypercortisolism can rarely be considered as functionally cured: this is evidenced by altered quality of life, working arrangements, and chronic depression. A multidisciplinary management of these patients is thus mandatory on a long-term basis.

Effects of Central Nervous System Drugs on Recovery After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pilot trials have suggested that pharmacotherapy may aid stroke recovery. The aim of this study was to systematically review the effects of antidepressants, anti-Alzheimer drugs, anti-Parkinson drugs, central nervous system (CNS) stimulants and piracetam on gross motor function, cognition, disability, dependency and quality of life (QOL) after stroke.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched, and 44 randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of interest between drug treatment and placebo or no treatment were included. For each study, standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Meta-analyses were conducted to pool results using either the fixed-effects or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) improved gross motor function (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.22-0.85; three studies), disability (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.66; 14 studies) and QOL (MD 6.46, 95% CI 4.71-8.22; two studies), but there was insufficient evidence for their use in enhancing global cognition (SMD 0.23, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.46; five studies) and dependency (risk ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97; one fluoxetine study). In particular, gross motor function was improved by fluoxetine (SMD 0.64, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; two studies), while disability was improved by paroxetine (SMD 1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.46; two studies), citalopram (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.08-0.93; two studies) and fluoxetine (SMD 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.60; nine studies). There is insufficient evidence for the use of anti-Alzheimer drugs, anti-Parkinson drugs, CNS stimulants and piracetam to promote stroke recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of SSRIs may improve gross motor function, reduce disability and enhance QOL for patients recovering from stroke.

Efficacy of early administration of escitalopram on depressive and emotional symptoms and neurological dysfunction after stroke: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Mood and emotional disturbances are common in patients with stroke, and adversely affect the clinical outcome. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of early administration of escitalopram to reduce moderate or severe depressive symptoms and improve emotional and neurological dysfunction in patients with stroke.

METHODS

This was a placebo controlled, double-blind trial done at 17 centres in South Korea. Patients who had had an acute stroke within the past 21 days were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral escitalopram (10 mg/day) or placebo for 3 months. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks stratified by centre, via a web-based system. The primary endpoint was the frequency of moderate or severe depressive symptoms (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] ≥16). Endpoints were assessed at 3 months after randomisation in the full analysis set (patients who took study medication and underwent assessment of primary endpoint after randomisation), in all patients who were enrolled and randomly assigned (intention to treat), and in all patients who completed the trial (per-protocol analysis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01278498.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 27, 2011, and June 30, 2014, 478 patients were assigned to placebo (n=237) or escitalopram (n=241); 405 were included in the full analysis set (195 in the placebo group, 210 in the escitalopram group). The primary outcome did not differ by study group in the full analysis set (25 [13%] patients in the placebo group vs 27 [13%] in the escitalopram group; odds ratio [OR] 1·00, 95% CI 0·56-1·80; p>0·99) or in the intention-to-treat analysis (34 [14%] vs 35 [15%]; OR 1·01, 95% CI 0·61-1·69, p=0·96). The study medication was generally well tolerated; the most common adverse events were constipation (14 [6%] patients who received placebo vs 14 [6%] who received escitalopram), muscle pain (16 [7%] vs ten [4%]), and insomnia (12 [5%] vs 12 [5%]). Diarrhoea was more common in the escitalopram group (nine [4%] patients) than in the placebo group (two [1%] patients).

INTERPRETATION

Escitalopram did not significantly reduce moderate or severe depressive symptoms in patients with acute stroke.

FUNDING

Dong-A Pharmaceutical and Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs, South Korea.

Post-stroke Mood and Emotional Disturbances: Pharmacological Therapy Based on Mechanisms

Post-stroke mood and emotional disturbances are frequent and diverse in their manifestations. Out of the many post-stroke disturbances, post-stroke depression, post-stroke anxiety, post-stroke emotional incontinence, post-stroke anger proneness, and post-stroke fatigue are frequent and important symptoms. These symptoms are distressing for both the patients and their caregivers, and negatively influence the patient's quality of life. Unfortunately, these emotional disturbances are not apparent and are therefore often unnoticed by busy clinicians. Their phenomenology, predicting factors, and pathophysiology have been under-studied, and are under-recognized. In addition, well-designed clinical trials regarding these symptoms are rare. Fortunately, these mood and emotional disturbances may be treated or prevented by various methods, including pharmacological therapy. To administer the appropriate therapy, we have to understand the phenomenology and the similarities and differences in the pathophysiological mechanisms associated with these emotional symptoms. This narrative review will describe some of the most common or relevant post-stroke mood and emotional disturbances. The phenomenology, factors or predictors, and relevant lesion locations will be described, and pharmacological treatment of these emotional disturbances will be discussed based on presumable pathophysiological mechanisms.

Use of antidepressant medications to improve outcomes after stroke

Interest in the use of antidepressants after stroke has been renewed by better knowledge of poststroke depression, but mainly by the capacity of some of them to promote functional recovery of nondepressed subjects. Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator thrombolysis within the first few hours after the stroke is currently the only validated treatment able to improve the spontaneous--and most of the time incomplete--recovery of neurological functions after stroke. However, we have learned from research over the last decade, in part based on the considerable improvement of neuroimaging techniques, that spontaneous recovery of neurological functions is associated with a large intracerebral reorganization of the damaged human brain. The question of whether lesioned-brain plasticity can be modulated by external factors such as pharmacological antidepressant agents is now being addressed with the aim of improving recovery and reducing the final disability of patients. Poststroke depression is known to be frequent and deleterious for patient outcome. We review the interest in the use of antidepressants after stroke in classic but often neglected poststroke depression and we strongly underline the action of some antidepressants in promoting functional recovery of nondepressed patients after stroke.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery

BACKGROUND

Stroke is the major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression. Recently, small trials have demonstrated that SSRIs might improve recovery after stroke, even in people who are not depressed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the least biased way to bring together data from several trials. Given the promising effect of SSRIs on stroke recovery seen in small trials, a systematic review and meta-analysis is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether SSRIs improve recovery after stroke, and whether treatment with SSRIs was associated with adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2011), Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group Trials Register (November 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1948 to August 2011), EMBASE (from 1980 to August 2011), CINAHL (from 1982 to August 2011), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (from 1985 to August 2011), PsycINFO (from 1967 to August 2011) and PsycBITE (Pyschological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy) (March 2012). To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we searched trials registers, pharmaceutical websites, reference lists, contacted experts and performed citation tracking of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. For trials in English, two review authors independently extracted data. For Chinese papers, one review author extracted data. We used standardised mean differences (SMD) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 completed trials of SSRI versus control, of which 52 trials (4059 participants) provided data for meta-analysis. There were statistically significant benefits of SSRI on both of the primary outcomes: RR for reducing dependency at the end of treatment was 0.81 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97) based on one trial, and for disability score, the SMD was 0.91 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) (22 trials involving 1343 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 87%; P < 0.0001). For neurological deficit, depression and anxiety, there were statistically significant benefits of SSRIs. For neurological deficit score, the SMD was -1.00 (95% CI -1.26 to -0.75) (29 trials involving 2011 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). For dichotomous depression scores, the RR was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.77) (eight trials involving 771 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 77%; P < 0.0001). For continuous depression scores, the SMD was -1.91 (95% CI -2.34 to -1.48) (39 trials involving 2728 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 95%; P < 0.00001). For anxiety, the SMD was -0.77 (95% CI -1.52 to -0.02) (eight trials involving 413 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 92%; P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant benefit of SSRI on cognition, death, motor deficits and leaving the trial early. For cognition, the SMD was 0.32 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.86), (seven trials involving 425 participants) with high heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 86%; P < 0.00001). The RR for death was 0.76 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.70) (46 trials involving 3344 participants) with no heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 0%; P = 0.85). For motor deficits, the SMD was -0.33 (95% CI -1.22 to 0.56) (two trials involving 145 participants). The RR for leaving the trial early was 1.02 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21) in favour of control, with no heterogeneity between trials. There was a non-significant excess of seizures (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 11.63) (seven trials involving 444 participants), a non-significant excess of gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.94 to 3.85) (14 trials involving 902 participants) and a non-significant excess of bleeding (RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 13.05) (two trials involving 249 participants) in those allocated SSRIs. Data were not available on quality of life, fatigue or healthcare costs.There was no clear evidence from subgroup analyses that one SSRI was consistently superior to another, or that time since stroke or depression at baseline had a major influence on effect sizes. Sensitivity analyses suggested that effect sizes were smaller when we excluded trials at high or unclear risk of bias.Only eight trials provided data on outcomes after treatment had been completed; the effect sizes were generally in favour of SSRIs but CIs were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

SSRIs appeared to improve dependence, disability, neurological impairment, anxiety and depression after stroke, but there was heterogeneity between trials and methodological limitations in a substantial proportion of the trials. Large, well-designed trials are now needed to determine whether SSRIs should be given routinely to patients with stroke.

Post-stroke depression: an update

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke depression (PSD) is the most common mood disorder following a stroke, and also the main factor limiting recovery and rehabilitation in stroke patients. In addition, it may increase mortality by up to ten times.

DEVELOPMENT

PSD occurs in 1 in 3 stroke patients and more than half of all cases are neither diagnosed nor treated. Several mechanisms, including biological, behavioral, and social factors, are involved in its pathogenesis. Symptoms usually occur within the first three months after stroke (early onset PSD), and less frequently at a later time (late onset PSD). Symptoms resemble those of other types of depression, although there are some differences: PSD patients experience more sleep disturbances, vegetative symptoms, and social withdrawal. For PSD diagnosis, we recommended vigilance and use of specific diagnostic tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). The treatments of choice are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). However, there are still many unanswered questions in the treatment of PSD, such as the best time to start treatment or the effects of antidepressants on cognition and motor function, among others.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurologists play a pivotal role in the care and management of patients recovering from stroke. They must be familiar with methods for early detection and treatment of PSD, as this can facilitate a patient's functional recovery and social reintegration, and improve quality of life for patients and their families.

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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pharmaceutical treatment reduces the frequency of emotional displays in people with emotionalism after stroke.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group (last searched August 2009). In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2008), EMBASE (1980 to May 2008), CINAHL (1982 to May 2008), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2008), Arts and Humanities Index (1991 to May 2008), BIOSIS Previews (2002 to May 2008), Science Citation Index (1992 to May 2008), Social Sciences Citation Index (1991 to May 2008), Sociological Abstract/Sociofile (1974 to May 2008), ISI Web of Science (2002 to May 2008), reference lists, clinical trials registers, conference proceedings and dissertation abstracts. We also contacted authors, researchers and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing psychotropic medication to placebo in people with stroke and emotionalism (also known as emotional lability or pathological crying and laughing).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We obtained data for people who no longer met the criteria for emotionalism, and on reduction in frequency of crying. Primary analyses were the proportion of patients who met the criteria for emotionalism at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included emotionalism and depression scores, cognitive function, death, activities of daily living and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials involving 239 participants. Data were available for five trials with 213 participants. Five trials showed large effects of treatment: 50% reduction in emotionalism, diminished tearfulness, improvements (reduction) in lability, tearfulness and scores on the Pathological Laughter and Crying Scale. However, confidence intervals were wide indicating that treatment may have had only a small positive effect, or even a small negative effect (in one trial). Only two studies systematically reported adverse events; no discernible differences were seen between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressants can reduce the frequency and severity of crying or laughing episodes. The effect does not seem specific to one drug or class of drugs. Our conclusions must be qualified by several methodological deficiencies in the studies. More reliable data are required before recommendations can be made about the treatment of post-stroke emotionalism.