| 61. |
- Jackson, Caroline A, et al.
(författare)
-
Differing Risk Factor Profiles of Ischemic Stroke Subtypes: Evidence for a Distinct Lacunar Arteriopathy?
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Stroke: a journal of cerebral circulation. - 1524-4628. ; 41:4, s. 624-629
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differences in risk factor profiles between lacunar and other ischemic stroke subtypes may provide evidence for a distinct lacunar arteriopathy, but existing studies have limitations. We overcame these by pooling individual data on 2875 patients with first-ever ischemic stroke from 5 collaborating prospective stroke registers that used similar, unbiased methods to define risk factors and classify stroke subtypes. METHODS: We compared risk factors between lacunar and nonlacunar ischemic strokes, altering the comparison groups in sensitivity analyses, and incorporated these data into a meta-analysis of published studies. RESULTS: Unadjusted and adjusted analyses gave similar results. We found a lower prevalence of cardioembolic source (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.46), ipsilateral carotid stenosis (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.30), and ischemic heart disease (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97) in lacunar compared with nonlacunar patients but no difference for hypertension, diabetes, or any other risk factor studied. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and largely confirmed in our meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension and diabetes appear equally common in lacunar and nonlacunar ischemic stroke, but lacunar stroke is less likely to be caused by embolism from the heart or proximal arteries, and the lower prevalence of ischemic heart disease in lacunar stroke provides additional support for a nonatherosclerotic arteriopathy causing many lacunar ischemic strokes. Our findings have implications for how clinicians classify ischemic stroke subtypes and highlight the need for additional research into the specific causes of and treatments for lacunar stroke.
|
|
| 62. |
|
|
| 63. |
- Legg, Lynn A, et al.
(författare)
-
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1469-493X. ; 2019:11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 64. |
- Legg, Lynn A., et al.
(författare)
-
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1469-493X. ; :11
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSR1s)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.ObjectivesTo 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 methodsWe 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 criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors vvithin the firstyear. 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 analysisWe 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 (as). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria.Main resultsWe 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, 9.50/0 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% C I 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' conclusionsThere 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.
|
|
| 65. |
|
|
| 66. |
- Lundström, Erik, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of Fluoxetine on Outcomes at 12 Months After Acute Stroke Results From EFFECTS, a Randomized Controlled Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Stroke. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0039-2499 .- 1524-4628. ; 52:10, s. 3082-3087
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The EFFECTS (Efficacy of Fluoxetine-a Randomised Controlled Trial in Stroke) recently reported that 20 mg fluoxetine once daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome but reduced depression and increased fractures and hyponatremia at 6 months. The purpose of this predefined secondary analysis was to identify if any effects of fluoxetine were maintained or delayed over 12 months. METHODS: EFFECTS was an investigator-led, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial in Sweden that enrolled adult patients with stroke. Patients were randomized to 20 mg oral fluoxetine or matching placebo for 6 months and followed for another 6 months. The primary outcome was functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale), at 6 months. Predefined secondary outcomes for these analyses included the modified Rankin Scale, health status, quality of life, fatigue, mood, and depression at 12 months. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred patients were recruited from 35 centers in Sweden between 2014 and 2019; 750 were allocated fluoxetine and 750 placebo. At 12 months, modified Rankin Scale data were available in 715 (95%) patients allocated fluoxetine and 712 (95%) placebo. The distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the 2 groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76-1.10]). Patients allocated fluoxetine scored worse on memory with a median value of 89 (interquartile range, 75-100) versus 93 (interquartile range, 82-100); P=0.0021 and communication 93 (interquartile range, 82-100) versus 96 (interquartile range, 86-100); P=0.024 domains of the Stroke Impact Scale compared with placebo. There were no other differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine after acute stroke had no effect on functional outcome at 12 months. Patients allocated fluoxetine scored worse on memory and communication on the Stroke Impact Scale compared with placebo, but this is likely to be due to chance.
|
|
| 67. |
- Lundström, Erik, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional recovery after acute stroke (EFFECTS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. Neurology. - 1474-4465 .- 1474-4422. ; 19:8, s. 661-669
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Studies have suggested that fluoxetine could improve neurological recovery after stroke. The Efficacy oF Fluoxetine-a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) trial aimed to assess whether administration of oral fluoxetine for 6 months after acute stroke improves functional outcome.EFFECTS was an investigator-led, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older between 2 and 15 days after stroke onset in 35 stroke and rehabilitation centres in Sweden. Eligible patients had a clinical diagnosis of ischaemic or intracerebral haemorrhage, brain imaging that was consistent with intracerebral haemorrhage or ischaemic stroke, and had at least one persisting focal neurological deficit. A web-based randomisation system that incorporated a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily or matching placebo capsules for 6 months. Patients, care providers, investigators, and outcomes assessors were masked to the allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 6 months, analysed in all patients with available mRS data at the 6-month follow-up; we did an ordinal analysis adjusted for the minimisation variables used in the randomisation. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2011-006130-16; ISRCTN, 13020412; and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02683213.Between Oct 20, 2014, and June 28, 2019, 1500 patients were enrolled, of whom 750 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 750 were randomly assigned to placebo. At 6 months, mRS data were available for 737 (98%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 742 (99%) patients in the placebo group. There was no effect of fluoxetine on the primary outcome-distribution across mRS score categories-compared with placebo (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·13]; p=0·42). The proportion of patients with a new diagnosis of depression was lower with fluoxetine than with placebo (54 [7%] patients vs 81 [11%] patients; difference -3·60% [-6·49 to -0·71]; p=0·015), but fluoxetine was associated with more bone fractures (28 [4%] vs 11 [2%]; difference 2·27% [0·66 to 3·87]; p=0·0058) and hyponatraemia (11 [1%] vs one [<1%]; difference 1·33% [0·43 to 2·23]; p=0·0038) at 6 months.Functional outcome after acute stroke did not improve with oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily for 6 months. Fluoxetine reduced the occurrence of depression but increased the risk of bone fractures and hyponatraemia. Our results do not support the use of fluoxetine after acute stroke.The Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the Swedish Society of Medicine, King Gustav V and Queen Victoria's Foundation of Freemasons, and the Swedish Stroke Association (STROKE-Riksförbundet).
|
|
| 68. |
- Maguire, Jane M., et al.
(författare)
-
GISCOME – Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional Outcome network : A protocol for an international multicentre genetic association study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Stroke Journal. - : SAGE Publications. - 2396-9873 .- 2396-9881. ; 2:3, s. 229-237
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Genome-wide association studies have identified several novel genetic loci associated with stroke risk, but how genetic factors influence stroke outcome is less studied. The Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional outcome network aims at performing genetic studies of stroke outcome. We here describe the study protocol and methods basis of Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional outcome. Methods: The Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional outcome network has assembled patients from 12 ischaemic stroke projects with genome-wide genotypic and outcome data from the International Stroke Genetics Consortium and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases Stroke Genetics Network initiatives. We have assessed the availability of baseline variables, outcome metrics and time-points for collection of outcome data. Results: We have collected 8831 ischaemic stroke cases with genotypic and outcome data. Modified Rankin score was the outcome metric most readily available. We detected heterogeneity between cohorts for age and initial stroke severity (according to the NIH Stroke Scale), and will take this into account in analyses. We intend to conduct a first phase genome-wide association outcome study on ischaemic stroke cases with data on initial stroke severity and modified Rankin score within 60–190 days. To date, we have assembled 5762 such cases and are currently seeking additional cases meeting these criteria for second phase analyses. Conclusion: Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional outcome is a unique collection of ischaemic stroke cases with detailed genetic and outcome data providing an opportunity for discovery of genetic loci influencing functional outcome. Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional outcome will serve as an exploratory study where the results as well as the methodological observations will provide a basis for future studies on functional outcome. Genetics of Ischaemic Stroke Functional outcome can also be used for candidate gene replication or assessing stroke outcome non-genetic association hypotheses.
|
|
| 69. |
- Mead, Gillian E., et al.
(författare)
-
Fluoxetine for stroke recovery : Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Stroke. - : SAGE Publications. - 1747-4930 .- 1747-4949. ; 15:4, s. 365-376
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluoxetine, at any dose, given within the first year after stroke to patients who did not have to have mood disorders at randomization reduced disability, dependency, neurological deficits and fatigue; improved motor function, mood, and cognition at the end of treatment and follow-up, with the same number or fewer adverse effects.METHODS: Searches (from 2012) in July 2018 included databases, trials registers, reference lists, and contact with experts. Co-primary outcomes were dependence and disability. Dichotomous data were synthesized using risk ratios (RR) and continuous data using standardized mean differences (SMD). Quality was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias methods. Sensitivity analyses explored influence of study quality.RESULTS: The searches identified 3414 references of which 499 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Six new completed RCTs (n = 3710) were eligible, and were added to the seven trials identified in a 2012 Cochrane review (total: 13 trials, n = 4145). There was no difference in the proportion independent (3 trials, n = 3249, 36.6% fluoxetine vs. 36.7% control; RR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.09, p = 0.99, I2 = 78%) nor in disability (7 trials n = 3404, SMD 0.05, -0.02 to 0.12 p = 0.15, I2 = 81%) at end of treatment. Fluoxetine was associated with better neurological scores and less depression. Among the four (n = 3283) high-quality RCTs, the only difference between groups was lower depression scores with fluoxetine.CONCLUSION: This class I evidence demonstrates that fluoxetine does not reduce disability and dependency after stroke but improves depression.
|
|
| 70. |
|
|
