Amphetamine and methylphenidate potential on the recovery from stroke and traumatic brain injury: a review

The prevalence of stroke and traumatic brain injury is increasing worldwide. However, current treatments do not fully cure or stop their progression, acting mostly on symptoms. Amphetamine and methylphenidate are stimulants already approved for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy treatment, with neuroprotective potential and benefits when used in appropriate doses. This review aimed to summarize pre-clinical and clinical trials testing either amphetamine or methylphenidate for the treatment of stroke and traumatic brain injury. We used PubMed as a database and included the following keywords ((methylphenidate) OR (Ritalin) OR (Concerta) OR (Biphentin) OR (amphetamine) OR (Adderall)) AND ((stroke) OR (brain injury) OR (neuroplasticity)). Overall, studies provided inconsistent results regarding cognitive and motor function. Neurite outgrowth, synaptic proteins, dendritic complexity, and synaptic plasticity increases were reported in pre-clinical studies along with function improvement. Clinical trials have demonstrated that, depending on the brain region, there is an increase in motor activity, attention, and memory due to the stimulation of the functionally depressed catecholamine system and the activation of neuronal remodeling proteins. Nevertheless, more clinical trials and pre-clinical studies are needed to understand the drugs' full potential for their use in these brain diseases namely, to ascertain the treatment time window, ideal dosage, long-term effects, and mechanisms, while avoiding their addictive potential.

Exploring the pathogenesis and treatment of PSD from the perspective of gut microbiota

Post-stroke depression (PSD) is a psychological disease that can occur following a stroke and is associated with serious consequences. Research on the pathogenesis and treatment of PSD is still in the infancy stage. Patients with PSD often exhibit gastrointestinal symptoms; therefore the role of gut microbiota in the pathophysiology and potential treatment effects of PSD has become a hot topic of research. In this review, describe the research on the pathogenesis and therapy of PSD. We also describe how the gut microbiota influences neurotransmitters, the endocrine system, energy metabolism, and the immune system. It was proposed that the gut microbiota is involved in the pathogenesis and treatment of PSD through the regulation of neurotransmitter levels, vagal signaling, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activation and inhibition, hormone secretion and release, in addition to immunity and inflammation.

Enhancement of STroke REhabilitation with Levodopa (ESTREL): Rationale and design of a randomized placebo-controlled, double blind superiority trial

RATIONALE

Novel therapeutic approaches are needed in stroke recovery. Whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for enhancing stroke recovery is unclear. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter involved in motor learning, reward, and brain plasticity. Its prodrug levodopa is a promising agent for stroke recovery.

AIM AND HYPOTHESIS

To investigate the hypothesis that levodopa, in addition to standardized rehabilitation therapy based on active task training, results in an enhancement of functional recovery in acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke patients compared to placebo.

DESIGN

ESTREL (Enhancement of Stroke REhabilitation with Levodopa) is a randomized (ratio 1:1), multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group superiority trial.

PARTICIPANTS

610 participants (according to sample size calculation) with a clinically meaningful hemiparesis will be enrolled ⩽7 days after stroke onset. Key eligibility criteria include (i) in-hospital-rehabilitation required, (ii) capability to participate in rehabilitation, (iii) previous independence in daily living.

INTERVENTION

Levodopa 100 mg/carbidopa 25 mg three times daily, administered for 5 weeks in addition to standardized rehabilitation. The study intervention will be initiated within 7 days after stroke onset.

COMPARISON

Matching placebo plus standardized rehabilitation.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome is the between-group difference of the Fugl-Meyer-Motor Assessment (FMMA) total score measured 3 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported health and wellbeing (PROMIS 10 and 29), patient-reported assessment of improvement, Rivermead Mobility Index, modified Rankin Scale, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and as measures of harm: mortality, recurrent stroke, and serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The ESTREL trial will provide evidence of whether the use of Levodopa in addition to standardized rehabilitation in stroke patients leads to better functional recovery compared to rehabilitation alone.

Pharmacotherapy to Improve Cognitive Functioning After Acquired Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Cognitive impairments, common sequelae of acquired brain injury (ABI), significantly affect rehabilitation and quality of life. Currently, there is no solid evidence-base for pharmacotherapy to improve cognitive functioning after ABI, nevertheless off-label use is widely applied in clinical practice. This meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to quantitatively aggregate the available evidence for the effects of pharmacological agents used in the treatment of cognitive impairments following ABI. We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, Medline Ovid, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases for randomized controlled and crossover trials. Meta-analytic effects were calculated for each pharmaceutical agent and targeted neuromodulator system. Cognitive outcome measures were aggregated across cognitive domains. Of 8,216 articles, 41 studies (4,434 patients) were included. The noradrenergic agent methylphenidate showed a small, significant positive effect on cognitive functioning in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI; k = 14, d = 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.56, P = 0.003). Specifically, methylphenidate was found to improve cognitive functions related to executive memory, baseline speed, inhibitory control, and variability in responding. The cholinergic drug donepezil demonstrated a large effect size, albeit based on a limited number of studies (k = 3, d = 1.68, P = 0.03). No significant effects were observed for other agents. Additionally, meta-regression analysis did not identify significant sources of heterogeneity in treatment response. Our meta-analysis supports the use of methylphenidate for enhancing cognitive functioning in patients with TBI. Although donepezil shows potential, it warrants further research. These results could guide clinical decision making, inform practice guidelines, and direct future pharmacotherapeutic research in ABI.

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.

Use of Levodopa After a Stroke: A Systematic Review

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, especially in certain ethnic groups. Impaired consciousness is a common outcome in stroke patients, serving as a predictor of prognosis and mortality. Lately, there has been increased interest in drugs such as Levodopa (LD), which have been found to promote wakefulness. To further appreciate this association, we gathered updated evidence of this novel therapeutic approach and compared it, evaluating its clinical use in an acute stroke setting. We carried out a systematic review of clinical trials conducted exclusively on stroke patients who received levodopa. Four clinical trials were reviewed and analyzed after applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The use of levodopa showed positive results in four of the clinical trials, and statistically significant results in 3/4 of the studies; however, more studies need to be conducted to corroborate these results.

Association between methylphenidate and risk of myocardial infarction: A multinational self-controlled case series study

PURPOSE

To investigate the association between use of methylphenidate and risk of myocardial infarction among Asians.

METHODS

We conducted a multinational self-controlled case series study using nationwide healthcare databases of South Korea (2002-2018), Taiwan (2004-2015), and Hong Kong (2001-2016). Of patients with myocardial infarction who were also prescribed methylphenidate within the observation period, methylphenidate use was classified into four mutually exclusive periods by each person-day: exposed (exposed to methylphenidate), pre-exposure (prior to the first methylphenidate prescription), washout (after the end of methylphenidate treatment), and baseline (unexposed to methylphenidate). Risk of myocardial infarction among the three periods of methylphenidate use was compared to the baseline period using conditional Poisson regression analysis to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We identified 2104, 484, and 30 patients from South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, respectively. Risk of myocardial infarction was the highest during the pre-exposure period in all three populations: South Korea, pre-exposure (IRR 3.17, 95% CI 3.04-3.32), exposed (1.05, 1.00-1.11), washout (1.92, 1.80-2.04); Taiwan, pre-exposure (1.97, 1.78-2.17), exposed (0.72, 0.65-0.80), washout (0.56, 0.46-0.68); Hong Kong, pre-exposure (18.09, 8.19-39.96), exposed (9.32, 3.44-25.28), washout (7.69, 1.72-34.41). Following stratification for age and sex, the trends remained analogous to the main findings across all three populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a positive association between initiating methylphenidate and the onset of myocardial infarction was observed, the risk was the highest in the period before its initiation. Thus, this multinational study suggests there was no causal relationship between methylphenidate and myocardial infarction among Asians.

Cognitive Recovery After Stroke: A Meta-analysis and Metaregression of Intervention and Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND

Cognition affects poststroke recovery, but meta-analyses of cognition have not yet provided a comparison of observational and intervention evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the trajectory of poststroke cognition and the factors that moderate it across intervention and observational cohorts.

METHODS

Six databases were searched up to January 2020. Studies describing quantitative changes in cognition in adults poststroke were included. Interventions were classified into pharmacological, therapist-led, nonroutine/alternative, and usual care. Summary estimates were compared via hierarchical mixed-effects models. Age, recovery stage, stroke etiology, cognitive domain targeted in studies, and intervention types were investigated as moderators of cognition. Recovery stage and intervention were further analyzed in a multiplicative metaregression model.

RESULTS

A total of 43 intervention trials and 79 observation cohorts involving 28 222 stroke participants were included. Heterogeneity was significant (τ² = 0.09; CI = 0.01-0.21, P < .001) with no evidence of publication bias. Cognitive recovery was greater in intervention trials (g = 0.47; CI = 0.37-0.58) than observational cohorts (g = 0.28; CI = 0.20-0.36) across all moderators analyzed. Nonroutine/alternative and pharmacological trials achieved the best overall results (g = 0.57, CI = 0.42-0.73, and g = 0.52, CI = 0.30-0.74, respectively), followed by therapist-led (g = 0.46; CI = 0.17-0.74), and usual care (g = 0.28; CI = 0.11-0.45) interventions. Medium recovery effects (ie, g ≥ 0.5) were observed in examining first-ever stroke, executive function, visuo-perceptual, consciousness, and psychomotor skills, 61 to 180 days poststroke, in participants aged 65 to 70 years.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive recovery is possible using different controlled interventions in all recovery stages, with smaller benefits ≥2 years poststroke. Longer-term studies are needed to determine the role of nonroutine/alternative therapies and the association between cognitive recovery and performance in everyday activities.

Pharmacological management of post-stroke depression: an update of the evidence and clinical guidance

Introduction: Post-stroke depression (PSD) is common, serious and of considerable high risk of being chronic. Pharmacological treatment is highly recommended (class I recommendation) based on level B evidence. Still, treatment is often insufficient and the diagnosis can be challenging.Areas covered: The present paper is an update on pharmacological treatment of PSD and a review of recent clinical guidelines. To put this into perspective, the authors highlight the risk factors that might help clinicians identify patients with PSD, and discuss pharmacological prevention, functional outcome, and safety of antidepressant treatment in stroke patients.Expert opinion: Although there are still gaps in our knowledge of PSD, the seriousness should not be neglected, and pharmacological treatment should be recommended when relevant. A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) is first choice, but is not always tolerated or effective. Close follow-up and dose adjustments as well as add-on possibilities are therefore important aspects of treatment as well. Antidepressant treatment prevents PSD but the effect on enhancement of stroke recovery is less clear.

Neuropsychiatric Complications after Stroke

Neuropsychiatric disturbances represent a common and uniquely challenging consequence of stroke. These disorders arise at the intersection of lesion-related brain dysfunction and psychological distress related to the event and its aftermath, making it difficult to identify what symptom is a direct physiological consequence of the stroke. Depression, anxiety, fatigue, apathy, emotionalism, and anger are the most common of these syndromes, and posttraumatic stress disorder related to the stroke event has become increasingly recognized as a relevant entity. Mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and psychosis are less commonly encountered but potentially highly debilitating conditions that may be underrecognized. Early identification and treatment may mitigate functional impairment and improve quality of life. Evidence-based guidelines from the general population are often relied upon to guide treatment. Further research is needed to understand and tailor treatment of these disorders in the poststroke population.

Can we prevent poststroke cognitive impairment? An umbrella review of risk factors and treatments

OBJECTIVES

Cognitive impairment poststroke is progressive. We aimed to synthesise the existing evidence evaluating risk factors and the effects of treatments to prevent/improve cognitive function in patients who had a stroke with cognitive impairment.

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

DATA SOURCE

Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane and PROSPERO were searched from inception until 11 June 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Published systematic review (SR) that incorporated randomised controlled trials to investigate an intervention to improve poststroke cognitive impairment, or SR of longitudinal observational studies that evaluated the risk factors of this condition. No restrictions were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

From each eligible study, details were recorded by one reviewer in a validated form. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria were used to assess our certainty level of each outcome, and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 to assess quality.

RESULTS

Altogether, 3464 abstracts were retrieved, 135 full texts were evaluated and 22 SRs were included in the final analysis. From four SRs of observational studies, we found 19 significant associations with postulated risk factors, and those which we determined to be confident about were: atrial fibrillation (3 SRs, 25 original studies); relative risk 3.01 (1.96-4.61), ORs 2.4 (1.7-3.5) and 2.0 (1.4-2.8), leukoaraiosis, multiple and recurrent strokes, ORs 2.5 (1.9-3.4), 2.5 (1.9-3.1) and 2.3 (1.5-3.5), respectively. From 18 SRs of interventional trials, we found that interventions including physical activity or cognitive rehabilitation were enhancing cognitive function, while the certainty of the other interventions was rated low, due to limited methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This review represents common risk factors related to poststroke cognitive impairment, in particular atrial fibrillation, and points to different interventions that warrant attention in the development of treatment strategies. Physical activity and cognitive rehabilitation interventions showed evidence of enhancing cognitive function; however, we could not recommend a change in practice yet, due to lack of strong evidence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018096667.

Amantadine and Modafinil as Neurostimulants Following Acute Stroke: A Retrospective Study of Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background/Objective

Neurostimulants may improve or accelerate cognitive and functional recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke (IS), or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), but few studies have described their safety and effectiveness in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this study was to describe amantadine and modafinil administration practices during acute stroke care starting in the ICU and to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

Methods

Consecutive adult ICU patients treated with amantadine and/or modafinil following acute non-traumatic IS, ICH, or SAH were evaluated. Neurostimulant administration data were extracted from the electronic medication administration record, including medication (amantadine, modafinil, or both), starting dose, time from stroke to initiation, and whether the neurostimulant was continued at hospital discharge. Patients were considered responders if they met two of three criteria within 9 days of neurostimulant initiation: increase in Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score ≥ 3 points from pre-treatment baseline, improved wakefulness or participation documented in caregiver notes, or clinical improvement documented in physical or occupational therapy notes. Potential confounders of the effectiveness assessment and adverse drug effects were also recorded.

Results

A total of 87 patients were evaluable during the 3.7-year study period, including 41 (47%) with ICH, 29 (33%) with IS, and 17 (20%) with SAH. The initial neurostimulant administered was amantadine in 71 (82%) patients, modafinil in 13 (15%), or both in 3 (3%) patients. Neurostimulants were initiated a median of 7 (4.25, 12.75) days post-stroke (range 1–27 days) for somnolence (77%), not following commands (32%), lack of eye opening (28%), or low GCS (17%). The most common starting dose was 100 mg twice daily for both amantadine (86%) and modafinil (54%). Of the 79 patients included in the effectiveness evaluation, 42 (53%) were considered responders, including 34/62 (55%) receiving amantadine monotherapy and 8/24 (33%) receiving both amantadine and modafinil at the time they met the definition of a responder. No patient receiving modafinil monotherapy was considered a responder. The median time from initiation to response was 3 (2, 5) days. Responders were more frequently discharged home or to acute rehabilitation compared to non-responders (90% vs 62%, p = 0.006). Among survivors, 63/72 (88%) were prescribed a neurostimulant at hospital discharge. The most common potential adverse drug effect was sleep disruption (16%).

Conclusions

Neurostimulant administration during acute stroke care may improve wakefulness. Future controlled studies with a neurostimulant administration protocol, prospective evaluation, and discretely defined response and safety criteria are needed to confirm these encouraging findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12028-020-00986-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Plasticity and recovery of function

The frontal lobe plays a crucial role in human motor behavior. It is one of the last areas of the brain to mature, especially the prefrontal regions. After a brief historical perspective on the perceived dichotomy between the view of the brain as a static organ and that of a plastic, constantly changing structure, we discuss the stability/plasticity dilemma including examples of documented cortical reorganization taking place at multiple spatial and temporal scales. We pose that while plasticity is needed for motor learning, stability of the system is necessary for storage and maintenance of memorized skills. We discuss how this plasticity/stability dilemma is resolved along the life span and after a brain injury. We then examine the main challenges that clinicians have to overcome to promote recovery of function in patients with brain lesions, including attempts to use neurostimulation techniques as adjuvant to training-based customary neurorehabilitation.

Executive (dys)function after stroke: special considerations for behavioral pharmacology

Stroke is a worldwide leading cause of death and long-term disability with concurrent secondary consequences that are largely comprised of mood dysfunction, as well as sensory, motor, and cognitive deficits. This review focuses on the cognitive deficits associated with stroke specific to executive dysfunction (including decision making, working memory, and cognitive flexibility) in humans, nonhuman primates, and additional animal models. Further, we review some of the cellular and molecular underpinnings of the individual components of executive dysfunction and their neuroanatomical substrates after stroke, with an emphasis on the changes that occur during biogenic monoamine neurotransmission. We concentrate primarily on changes in the catecholaminergic (dopaminergic and noradrenergic) and serotonergic systems at the levels of neurotransmitter synthesis, distribution, reuptake, and degradation. We also discuss potential secondary stroke-related behavioral deficits (specifically, poststroke depression as well as drug-abuse potential and addiction) and their relationship with stroke-induced deficits in executive function, an especially important consideration given that the average age of the human stroke population is decreasing. In the final sections, we address pharmacological considerations for the treatment of ischemia and the subsequent functional impairment, as well as current limitations in the field of stroke and executive function research.

The Intersection of Central Dopamine System and Stroke: Potential Avenues Aiming at Enhancement of Motor Recovery

Dopamine, a major neurotransmitter, plays a role in a wide range of brain sensorimotor functions. Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia are two major human neuropsychiatric disorders typically associated with dysfunctional dopamine activity levels, which can be alleviated through the druggability of the dopaminergic systems. Meanwhile, several studies suggest that optimal brain dopamine activity levels are also significantly impacted in other serious neurological conditions, notably stroke, but this has yet to be fully appreciated at both basic and clinical research levels. This is of utmost importance as there is a need for better treatments to improve recovery from stroke. Here, we discuss the state of knowledge regarding the modulation of dopaminergic systems following stroke, and the use of dopamine boosting therapies in animal stroke models to improve stroke recovery. Indeed, studies in animals and humans show stroke leads to changes in dopamine functioning. Moreover, evidence from animal stroke models suggests stimulation of dopamine receptors may be a promising therapeutic approach for enhancing motor recovery from stroke. With respect to the latter, we discuss the evidence for several possible receptor-linked mechanisms by which improved motor recovery may be mediated. One avenue of particular promise is the subtype-selective stimulation of dopamine receptors in conjunction with physical therapy. However, results from clinical trials so far have been more mixed due to a number of potential reasons including, targeting of the wrong patient populations and use of drugs which modulate a wide array of receptors. Notwithstanding these issues, it is hoped that future research endeavors will assist in the development of more refined dopaminergic therapeutic approaches to enhance stroke recovery.

A Review and Conceptual Model of Dopaminergic Contributions to Poststroke Depression

About one third of all patients recovering from stroke will experience some degree of poststroke depression (PSD). PSD lengthens recovery times and reduces overall quality of life for these individuals. Although demographic, environmental, and clinical factors may explain some of the variability seen, these factors cannot fully predict the development of PSD. Furthermore, the precise mechanism of action is largely unknown. Recent work has begun to shed light on the influence of the monoamine neurotransmitter dopamine. This article summarizes the current evidence for the involvement of the dopaminergic system for PSD, using both preclinical and clinical models. Finally, a conceptual model is proposed that addresses the contributions of dopamine to the development of PSD.

Genetics as a molecular window into recovery, its treatment, and stress responses after stroke

Stroke remains a major source of adult disability in the USA and worldwide. Most patients show some recovery during the weeks to months following a stroke, but this is generally incomplete. An emerging branch of therapeutics targets the processes underlying this behavioral recovery from stroke toward the goal of reducing long-term disability. A key factor hampering these efforts is the very large degree of variability between stroke survivors. Available data suggest that genetic differences could explain an important fraction of the differences between subjects. The current review considers this from several angles, including genetic differences in relation to drugs that promote recovery. Genetic factors related to physiological and psychological stress responses may also be critically important to understanding recovery after stroke and its treatment. The studies reviewed provide insights into recovery and suggest directions for further research to improve clinical decision-making in this setting. Genetic differences between patients might be used to help clinical trials select specific patient subgroups, on a biological basis, in order to sharpen the precision with which new treatments are evaluated. Pharmacogenomic factors might also provide insights into inter-subject differences in treatment side effects for pharmacological prescriptions, and behavioral interventions, and others. These efforts must be conducted with the strictest ethical standards given the highly sensitive nature of genetic data. Understanding the effect of selected genetic measures could improve a clinician's ability to predict the risk and efficacy of a restorative therapy and to make maximally informed decisions, and in so doing, facilitate individual patient care.

The effectiveness of dopamine agonists for treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms post brain injury and stroke

OBJECTIVE

Traumatic brain injury and stroke are among the leading causes of neurological disability worldwide. Although dopaminergic agents have long been associated with improvement of neuropsychiatric outcomes, to date much of the evidence to date has been in case reports and case series or open label trials.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of double-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCT) to determine the effect of dopaminergic agents on pre-defined outcomes of (a) apathy; (b) psychomotor retardation; (c) behavioural management and (d) cognitive function. Databases searched were: Medline, EMBASE, and PsychInfo for human studies. The Cochrane Clinical Trials Database and the TRIP Medical database were also searched. All identified studies, were further hand-searched.

RESULTS

We identified six studies providing data on 227 participants, 150 of whom received dopaminergic therapy. Trials were compromised by cross-over design, inadequate wash out period, small numbers and heterogeneous outcome measures. However one good quality RCT demonstrates the efficacy of amantadine in behavioural management. One further RCT shows methylphenidate-levodopa is efficacious for mood post-stroke. One study shows rotigotine to improve hemi-inattention caused by prefrontal damage.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review demonstrates an evolving evidence base to suggest some benefits in agitation and aggression, mood and attentional deficits. However, there are key limitations of the studies undertaken to date involving small numbers of participants, heterogeneous outcome measures, and variable study designs. There is a need for on-going large prospective double-blind RCTs in these medications using standardised criteria and outcomes to fully understand their effectiveness in this patient group.

Feasibility of the cognitive assessment scale for stroke patients (CASP) vs. MMSE and MoCA in aphasic left hemispheric stroke patients

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke aphasia makes it difficult to assess cognitive deficiencies. We thus developed the CASP, which can be administered without using language. Our objective was to compare the feasibility of the CASP, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in aphasic stroke patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All aphasic patients consecutively admitted to seven French rehabilitation units during a 4-month period after a recent first left hemispheric stroke were assessed with CASP, MMSE and MoCA. We determined the proportion of patients in whom it was impossible to administer at least one item from these 3 scales, and compared their administration times.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were included (age 64±15, 26 males). The CASP was impossible to administer in eight of them (18%), compared with 16 for the MMSE (36%, P=0.05) and 13 for the MoCA (30%, P=0.21, NS). It was possible to administer the CASP in all of the patients with expressive aphasia, whereas the MMSE and the MoCA could not be administered. Administration times were longer for the CASP (13±4min) than for the MMSE (8±3min, P<10(-6)) and the MoCA (11±5min, P=0.23, NS).

CONCLUSION

The CASP is more feasible than the MMSE and the MoCA in aphasic stroke patients.

Pharmacogenetics of neural injury recovery

Relatively few pharmacological agents are part of routine care for neural injury, although several are used or under consideration in acute stroke, chronic stroke, traumatic brain injury and secondary stroke prevention. Tissue plasminogen activator is approved for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke, and genetic variants may impact the efficacy and safety of this drug. In the chronic phase of stroke, several drugs such as L-dopa, fluoxetine and donepezil are under investigation for enhancing rehabilitation therapy, with varying levels of evidence. One potential reason for the mixed efficacy displayed by these drugs may be the influence of genetic factors that were not considered in prior studies. An understanding of the genetics impacting the efficacy of dopaminergic, serotonergic and cholinergic drugs may allow clinicians to target these potential therapies to those patients most likely to benefit. In the setting of stroke prevention, which is directly linked to neural injury recovery, the most highly studied pharmacogenomic interactions pertain to clopidogrel and warfarin. Incorporating pharmacogenomics into neural injury recovery has the potential to maximize the benefit of several current and potential pharmacological therapies and to refine the choice of pharmacological agent that may be used to enhance benefits from rehabilitation therapy.

Stroke rehabilitation: recent advances and future therapies

Despite advances in the acute management of stroke, a large proportion of stroke patients are left with significant impairments. Over the coming decades the prevalence of stroke-related disability is expected to increase worldwide and this will impact greatly on families, healthcare systems and economies. Effective neuro-rehabilitation is a key factor in reducing disability after stroke. In this review, we discuss the effects of stroke, principles of stroke rehabilitative care and predictors of recovery. We also discuss novel therapies in stroke rehabilitation, including non-invasive brain stimulation, robotics and pharmacological augmentation. Many trials are currently underway, which, in time, may impact on future rehabilitative practice.