Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 11 2021
15 11 2021
Historique:
entrez:
15
11
2021
pubmed:
16
11
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34780067
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009286.pub4
pmc: PMC8592088
doi:
Substances chimiques
Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors
0
Fluoxetine
01K63SUP8D
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02683213']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD009286Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
Nervenarzt. 2009 Jul;80(7):805-12
pubmed: 19455296
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010 Feb;67(2):187-96
pubmed: 20124118
JAMA. 2009 Mar 11;301(10):1023-4
pubmed: 19278945
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26(3):266-71
pubmed: 18648199
BMJ. 2019 Mar 25;364:l1029
pubmed: 30910804
Trials. 2020 Feb 28;21(1):233
pubmed: 32111264
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Dec;96(12):2112-9
pubmed: 26376447
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
pubmed: 13655060
Trials. 2020 May 7;21(1):388
pubmed: 32381037
Korean J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009 Jun;13(3):257-63
pubmed: 19885045
Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Mar;157(3):351-9
pubmed: 10698809
J Affect Disord. 2020 Apr 1;266:540-548
pubmed: 32056924
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002 May;190(5):296-303
pubmed: 12011609
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD009286
pubmed: 23152272
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2015 Feb;35(2):119-22
pubmed: 25854014
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602
pubmed: 27733282
Neurophysiol Clin. 2019 Apr;49(2):149-164
pubmed: 30391148
Stroke. 2019 Nov;50(11):3280-3282
pubmed: 31426731
Trials. 2020 Nov 25;21(1):971
pubmed: 33239053
Int J Stroke. 2015 Aug;10(6):985-7
pubmed: 25854537
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Mar;190:105656
pubmed: 31896491
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2006;24(1):9-15
pubmed: 16518023
J Neurol. 2009 Jul;256(7):1152-8
pubmed: 19306038
Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2019 Aug 30;4:30
pubmed: 31637010
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Aug;19(8):661-669
pubmed: 32702335
J Stroke. 2018 May;20(2):258-267
pubmed: 29886724
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 15;11:CD009286
pubmed: 34780067
Stroke. 1996 Jul;27(7):1211-4
pubmed: 8685930
Clin Rehabil. 2017 Jan;31(1):71-81
pubmed: 26817808
J Clin Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;66(6):708-16
pubmed: 15960563
Stroke. 1994 Jun;25(6):1099-104
pubmed: 8202964
BMJ Open. 2020 Nov 30;10(11):e040492
pubmed: 33257485
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1998 Dec;98(6):455-8
pubmed: 9879787
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135
pubmed: 25524443
Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2020;54(6):544-551
pubmed: 33373036
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2004 Mar;111(3):387-411
pubmed: 14991461
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2009 Oct;29(10):785-90
pubmed: 19873912
Trials. 2013 Mar 19;14:77
pubmed: 23510124
Ann Neurol. 2001 Dec;50(6):718-29
pubmed: 11761469
Lancet. 2019 Jan 19;393(10168):265-274
pubmed: 30528472
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2020 Oct 07;53(11):e8930
pubmed: 33053113
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2018 Mar;89(3):271-276
pubmed: 29030421
Trials. 2017 Dec 28;18(1):627
pubmed: 29282099
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2021 Nov;34(6):565-573
pubmed: 32912058
Health Technol Assess. 2020 May;24(22):1-94
pubmed: 32452356
J Neurosci Res. 2009 Mar;87(4):1037-45
pubmed: 18855941
Bull World Health Organ. 1976;54(5):541-53
pubmed: 1088404
J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Sep;14(7):841-6
pubmed: 18721085
J Neurol. 2003 Mar;250(3):347-51
pubmed: 12638027
J Neurol Sci. 2020 Jan 15;408:116563
pubmed: 31731111
J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Jul;67(7):1104-9
pubmed: 16889454
Int J Stroke. 2020 Jun;15(4):365-376
pubmed: 31619137
Stroke. 2018 Nov;49(11):2568-2576
pubmed: 30355209
Lancet. 1993 Oct 2;342(8875):837-9
pubmed: 8104273
J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2014 Fall;26(4):323-8
pubmed: 24457590
Behav Pharmacol. 2007 Sep;18(5-6):391-418
pubmed: 17762509
Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;160(10):1823-9
pubmed: 14514497
Ugeskr Laeger. 1995 Apr 3;157(14):2000-3
pubmed: 7740639
CMAJ. 2008 Oct 7;179(8):751-3
pubmed: 18838445
Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2004 May;2(3):182-4
pubmed: 15339439
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2005;28:223-50
pubmed: 16022595
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 May;168:1-6
pubmed: 29494855
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Aug;33(8):643-655
pubmed: 31286828
Lancet Neurol. 2011 Feb;10(2):123-30
pubmed: 21216670
Front Neurosci. 2017 Nov 16;11:637
pubmed: 29200995
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2008 May-Jun;22(3):311-4
pubmed: 18219053
Clin Rehabil. 2018 Aug;32(8):1069-1075
pubmed: 29783900
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 27;9(1):20048
pubmed: 31882732
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2020;38(5):385-393
pubmed: 33185618
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;49(6):632-638
pubmed: 33176308
Stroke. 2000 Aug;31(8):1829-32
pubmed: 10926942
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1999 Aug;14(8):681-5
pubmed: 10489659
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Jul;31(7):638-647
pubmed: 28454498
Psychosomatics. 2003 May-Jun;44(3):216-21
pubmed: 12724503
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Aug;19(8):651-660
pubmed: 32702334
Clin Neuropharmacol. 2009 Jan-Feb;32(1):1-5
pubmed: 19536922
Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Jan;4(1):33-41
pubmed: 28012485
Science. 2003 Aug 8;301(5634):805-9
pubmed: 12907793
Int J Clin Pract. 2010 Aug;64(9):1310-7
pubmed: 20653802
Johns Hopkins Med Lett Health After 50. 2012 Jan;23(11):3
pubmed: 22396993
Bull Acad Natl Med. 2002;186(6):1015-23; discussion 1023-4
pubmed: 12587340
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016 Apr;25(4):761-70
pubmed: 26823037
Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi. 2007 Jul;27(7):640-2
pubmed: 17717928
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1999 Dec;19(12):1365-75
pubmed: 10598941
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Sep 1;94(9):634-634A
pubmed: 27708464
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1994 Aug;115(4):543-6
pubmed: 7871100
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2016;34(2):177-87
pubmed: 26923613
JAMA. 2008 May 28;299(20):2391-400
pubmed: 18505948
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 19;3:CD003690
pubmed: 30887498
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Jul;97(29):e11496
pubmed: 30024530
Neurochem Int. 2007 Jun;50(7-8):1028-41
pubmed: 17531349