Effects of the prophylactic use of escitalopram on the prognosis and the plasma copeptin level in patients with acute cerebral infarction

Stroke Rehabilitation: Synopsis of the 2024 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines

DESCRIPTION

In July 2024, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) released a joint update of their 2019 clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the management of stroke rehabilitation. This synopsis is a condensed version of the 2024 CPG, highlighting the key aspects of the guideline development process and describing the major recommendations.

METHODS

The VA/DOD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DOD guideline development work group (WG) that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy CPGs. The guideline WG conducted a patient focus group, developed key questions, and systematically searched and evaluated the literature (English-language publications from 1 July 2018 to 2 May 2023). The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to evaluate the evidence. The WG developed 47 recommendations along with algorithms for stroke rehabilitation in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Stakeholders outside the WG reviewed the CPG before approval by the VA/DOD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis summarizes where evidence is strongest to support guidelines in crucial areas relevant to primary care physicians: transition to community (case management, psychosocial or behavioral interventions); motor therapy (task-specific practice, mirror therapy, rhythmic auditory stimulation, electrical stimulation, botulinum toxin for spasticity); dysphagia, aphasia, and cognition (chin tuck against resistance, respiratory muscle strength training); and mental health (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use, psychotherapy, mindfulness-based therapies for treatment but not prevention of depression).

Arginine vasopressin in mood disorders: A potential biomarker of disease pathology and a target for pharmacologic intervention

Vasopressin or arginine-vasopressin (AVP) is a neuropeptide molecule known for its antidiuretic effects and serves to regulate plasma osmolality and blood pressure. The existing literature suggests that AVP plays a multifaceted-though less well-known-role in the central nervous system (CNS), particularly in relation to the pathophysiology and treatment of mood disorders. Animal models have demonstrated that AVP is implicated in regulating social cognition, affiliative and prosocial behaviors, and aggression, often in conjunction with oxytocin. In humans, AVP is implicated in mood disorders through its effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis as well as on the serotoninergic and glutamatergic systems. Measuring plasma AVP has yielded interesting but mixed results in mood and stress-related disorders. Recent advances have led to the development of copeptin as a stable and reliable surrogate biomarker for AVP. Another interesting but relatively unexplored issue is the interaction between the osmoregulatory system and mood disorder pathophysiology, given that psychotropic medications often cause dysregulation of AVP receptor expression or signaling that can subsequently lead to clinical syndromes like syndrome of inappropriate diuresis and diabetes insipidus. Finally, pharmaceutical trials of agents that act on V1a and V1b receptor antagonists are still underway. This narrative review summarizes: (1) the neurobiology of the vasopressinergic system in the CNS; (2) the interaction between AVP and the monoaminergic and glutamatergic pathways in the pathophysiology and treatment of mood disorders; (3) the iatrogenic AVP dysregulation caused by psychotropic medications; and (4) the pharmaceutical development of AVP receptor antagonists for the treatment of mood disorders.

The safety and efficacy of escitalopram and sertraline in post-stroke depression: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of escitalopram and sertraline in post-stroke depression (PSD) patients, to provide more reliable therapeutics for cardiovascular and psychiatric clinical practice.

METHODS

We recruited 60 patients (aged 40-89 years old) with an ICD-10 diagnosis of PSD, who were then randomly assigned to two groups and treated with flexible doses of escitalopram (10 to 20 mg/day, n = 30) or sertraline (50 to 200 mg/day, n = 30) for consecutive 8 weeks, respectively. The 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-24), the 14-item Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA-14), the Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale (TESS), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA), and the Activity of Daily Living scale (ADL) were used to assess patients before, during, and after treatment for depression, anxiety, adverse effects, cognitive function, and daily living activities. Repeated measures ANOVA, the Mann-Whitney U test, the chi-square test (χ2), or Fisher's exact test was employed to assess baseline demographics, response rate, adverse effects rate, and changes in other clinical variables.

RESULTS

Significant reduction in HAMD-24 and HAMA-14 scores was evaluated at baseline, as well as 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 weeks of drug intervention (p < 0.01). There was a significant group difference in post-treatment HAMD-24 scores (p < 0.05), but no difference was observed in HAMA-14 scores (p > 0.05). Further analysis showed a significant variance in the HAMD-24 scores between the two groups at the end of the first week (p < 0.01). The incidence of adverse effects in both patient groups was mild, but there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.05). The improvement in cognitive function and the recovery of daily living abilities were comparable between both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Escitalopram and sertraline showed comparable efficacy for anxiety symptoms, cognitive function, and daily living abilities in PSD patients. In addition, escitalopram was more appropriate for alleviating depressive symptoms. To validate the conclusion, trials with a larger sample size are in demand in the future. The registration number is ChiCTR1800017373.

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.

[Prevention of Post-Stroke Depression]

Post-stroke depression (PSD) is a clinically relevant complication of ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebral infarction that affects about 30% of all stroke survivors. It is associated with reduced quality of life as well as delayed recovery from neurological deficits and functional impairment, frequently leading to impeded rehabilitation. Suitable screening methods allow early detection of PSD. Timely initiation of treatment in patients with manifest PSD as well as implantation of effective prevention strategies can help reduce medical and socioeconomic burden associated with the disease. We reviewed the current literature on pharmacological and non-pharmacological prevention of PSD.

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.

Efficacy of Yangyin Yiqi Huoxue Granule () in Treatment of Ischemic Stroke Patients with Qi-Yin Deficiency and Blood Stasis Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase-2 Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Yangyin Yiqi Huoxue Granule (, YYHG) in the treatment of ischemic stroke (IS) patients with qi-yin deficiency and blood stasis syndrome (QYDBSS), and to explore its effective dosage.

METHODS

The total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to the YYHG high-dose, YYHG low-dose, positive control (administered Xiaoshuantong Granule, XSTG, ), or placebo control (administered inert granule) groups (72 cases per group) by software-drived competitive block randomization. The trial was conducted for a 28-day period, with a 180-day follow-up period. The primary outcome was the comprehensive curative evaluation, and secondary outcomes were the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, Barthel activities of daily living (ADL) index score, the quality of life index (QLI) score, and the Chinese medicine syndrome (CMS) score. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The clinical safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

The total of 288 participants were recruited between June 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009, and 287 patients received intervention; the treatment groups were well balanced at baseline. The comprehensive cure rates of YYHG high-dose, low-dose, positive and placebo control groups were 63.38%, 31.94%, 36.11% and 6.14%, respectively; there was a statistical difference between the two groups (P<0.01), while the high-dose YYHG treatment group was significantly higher than the other 3 groups (P<0.01). The improvement of NIHSS, ADL, QLI and CMS scores of the YYHG high-dose and low-dose groups was significantly better than that of the positive control group and the placebo control group (P<0.05). In terms of improving the classification of the NIHSS scale and the assessment of the ADL scale, the YYHG high-dose group was significantly better than the other three groups (P<0.05), and the YYHG low-dose group was better than the placebo control group (P<0.01). At the same time, except for the QLI score, the high-dose group was better than the low-dose group (P<0.05). In terms of safety, adverse reactions after YYHG treatment were generally mild (3.78%), and no serious adverse reactions have been reported.

CONCLUSION

YYHG is safe and effective in the treatment of IS patients with QYDBSS.

Preventive Approaches for Post-Stroke Depression: Where Do We Stand? A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Post-stroke depression (PSD) occurs in one-third of stroke survivors, leading to a substantial decrease in quality of life as well as delayed functional and neurological recovery. Early detection of patients at risk and initiation of tailored preventive measures may reduce the medical and socioeconomic burden associated with PSD. We sought to review the current evidence on pharmacological and non-pharmacological prevention of PSD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using PubMed/MEDLINE and bibliographies of identified papers following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including randomized controlled studies. Eligible studies were included when performed within 1 year after the index cerebrovascular event. Animal and basic research studies, studies lacking a control group, review papers, and case reports were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 150 studies screened, 37 met our criteria. Among the strategies identified, administration of antidepressants displayed the most robust evidence for preventing PSD, whereas non-pharmacological interventions such as psychotherapy appear to be the most frequently used approaches to prevent depression after stroke. Research suggests that the efficacy of PSD prevention increases with the duration of preventive treatment. Seven out of 11 studies (63%) that used pharmacological and eight out of 16 (50%) that used non-pharmacological interventions reported a positive preventive effect on PSD.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the current literature on PSD prevention shows heterogeneity, substantiating a need for well-designed randomized controlled trials to test the safety and efficacy of pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological and composite prevention regimens to minimize the risk of PSD in stroke survivors. Integrative strategies combining personalized non-pharmacological interventions such as educational, mental, and physical health support, and pharmacological strategies such as SSRIs may be the most promising approach to prevent PSD.