Interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence can affect 40% to 60% of people admitted to hospital after a stroke, with 25% still having problems when discharged from hospital and 15% remaining incontinent after one year.This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults at least one-month post-stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence and Cochrane Stroke Specialised Registers (searched 30 October 2017 and 1 November 2017 respectively), which contain trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment and implemented GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (reporting 21 comparisons) with 1338 participants. Data for prespecified outcomes were not available except where reported below.Intervention versus no intervention/usual careBehavioural interventions: Low-quality evidence suggests behavioural interventions may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (mean difference (MD) -1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to 0.74; 1 trial; 18 participants; P = 0.26). Further, low-quality evidence from two trials suggests that behavioural interventions may make little or no difference to quality of life (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -2.83 to 0.86; 55 participants).Specialised professional input interventions: One trial of moderate-quality suggested structured assessment and management by continence nurse practitioners probably made little or no difference to the number of people continent three months after treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.02; 121 participants; equivalent to an increase from 354 to 453 per 1000, 95% CI 287 to 715).Complementary therapy: Five trials assessed complementary therapy using traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture and ginger-salt-partitioned moxibustion plus routine acupuncture. Low-quality evidence from five trials suggested that complementary therapy may increase the number of participants continent after treatment; participants in the treatment group were three times more likely to be continent (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.07; 524 participants; equivalent to an increase from 193 to 544 per 1000, 95% CI 303 to 978). Adverse events were reported narratively in one study of electroacupuncture, reporting on bruising and postacupuncture abdominal pain in the intervention group.Physical therapy: Two trials reporting three comparisons suggest that physical therapy using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (MD -4.76, 95% CI -8.10 to -1.41; 142 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of TENS reporting two comparisons found that the intervention probably improves overall functional ability (MD 8.97, 95% CI 1.27 to 16.68; 81 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Intervention versus placeboPhysical therapy: One trial of physical therapy suggests TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.04; 54 participants) or number of incontinent episodes (MD -1.10, 95% CI -3.99 to 1.79; 39 participants). One trial suggested improvement in the TPTNS group at 26-weeks (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.41) but there was no evidence of a difference in perceived bladder condition at six weeks (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 8.65) or 12 weeks (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.17). Data from one trial provided no evidence that TPTNS made a difference to quality of life measured with the ICIQLUTSqol (MD 3.90, 95% CI -4.25 to 12.05; 30 participants). Minor adverse events, such as minor skin irritation and ankle cramping, were reported in one study.Pharmacotherapy interventions: There was no evidence from one study that oestrogen therapy made a difference to the mean number of incontinent episodes per week in mild incontinence (paired samples, MD -1.71, 95% CI -3.51 to 0.09) or severe incontinence (paired samples, MD -6.40, 95% CI -9.47 to -3.33). One study reported no adverse events.Specific intervention versus another interventionBehavioural interventions: One trial comparing a behavioural intervention (timed voiding) with a pharmacotherapy intervention (oxybutynin) contained no useable data.Complementary therapy: One trial comparing different acupuncture needles and depth of needle insertion to assess the effect on incontinence reported that, after four courses of treatment, 78.1% participants in the elongated needle group had no incontinent episodes versus 40% in the filiform needle group (57 participants). This trial was assessed as unclear or high for all types of bias apart from incomplete outcome data.Combined intervention versus single interventionOne trial compared a combined intervention (sensory motor biofeedback plus timed prompted voiding) against a single intervention (timed voiding). The combined intervention may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.21; 23 participants; equivalent to a decrease from 167 to 92 per 1000, 95% CI 10 to 868) or to the number of incontinent episodes (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.28; 23 participants).Specific intervention versus attention controlPhysical therapy interventions: One study found TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment compared to an attention control group undertaking stretching exercises (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.72; 24 participants; equivalent to an increase from 250 to 333 per 1000, 95% CI 95 to 1000). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide continence care of adults in the rehabilitative phase after stroke. As few trials tested the same intervention, conclusions are drawn from few, usually small, trials. CIs were wide, making it difficult to ascertain if there were clinically important differences. Only four trials had adequate allocation concealment and many were limited by poor reporting, making it impossible to judge the extent to which they were prone to bias. More appropriately powered, multicentre trials of interventions are required to provide robust evidence for interventions to improve urinary incontinence after stroke.

Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of stroke patients experience clinically significant levels of anxiety at some point after stroke. Physicians can treat these patients with antidepressants or other anxiety-reducing drugs, or both, or they can provide psychological therapy. This review looks at available evidence for these interventions. This is an update of the review first published in October 2011. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pharmaceutical, psychological, complementary, or alternative therapeutic interventions in treating stroke patients with anxiety disorders or symptoms. The secondary objective was to identify whether any of these interventions for anxiety had an effect on quality of life, disability, depression, social participation, caregiver burden, or risk of death. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Stroke Group (January 2017). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 1: searched January 2017); MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017) in Ovid; Embase (1980 to January 2017) in Ovid; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1937 to January 2017) in EBSCO; and PsycINFO (1800 to January 2017) in Ovid. We conducted backward citation searches of reviews identified through database searches and forward citation searches of included studies. We contacted researchers known to be involved in related trials, and we searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials including participants with a diagnosis of both stroke and anxiety for which treatment was intended to reduce anxiety. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a narrative review. We planned to do a meta-analysis but were unable to do so as included studies were not sufficiently comparable. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (four interventions) involving 196 participants with stroke and co-morbid anxiety. One trial (described as a 'pilot study') randomised 21 community-dwelling stroke survivors to four-week use of a relaxation CD or to wait list control. This trial assessed anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and reported a reduction in anxiety at three months among participants who had used the relaxation CD (mean (standard deviation (SD) 6.9 (± 4.9) and 11.0 (± 3.9)), Cohen's d = 0.926, P value = 0.001; 19 participants analysed).The second trial randomised 81 participants with co-morbid anxiety and depression to paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy, or standard care. Mean levels of anxiety severity scores based on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) at follow-up were 5.4 (SD ± 1.7), 3.8 (SD ± 1.8), and 12.8 (SD ± 1.9), respectively (P value < 0.01).The third trial randomised 94 stroke patients, also with co-morbid anxiety and depression, to receive buspirone hydrochloride or standard care. At follow-up, the mean levels of anxiety based on the HAM-A were 6.5 (SD ± 3.1) and 12.6 (SD ± 3.4) in the two groups, respectively, which represents a significant difference (P value < 0.01). Half of the participants receiving paroxetine experienced adverse events that included nausea, vomiting, or dizziness; however, only 14% of those receiving buspirone experienced nausea or palpitations. Trial authors provided no information about the duration of symptoms associated with adverse events. The trial of relaxation therapy reported no adverse events.The quality of the evidence was very low. Each study included a small number of participants, particularly the study of relaxation therapy. Studies of pharmacological agents presented details too limited to allow judgement of selection, performance, and detection bias and lack of placebo treatment in control groups. Although the study of relaxation therapy had allocated participants to treatment using an adequate method of randomisation, study recruitment methods might have introduced bias, and drop-outs in the intervention group may have influenced results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to guide the treatment of anxiety after stroke. Further well-conducted randomised controlled trials (using placebo or attention controls) are required to assess pharmacological agents and psychological therapies.

An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of an established programme of occupational therapy in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity in care home residents living with stroke sequelae. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 228 care homes (>10 beds each), both with and without the provision of nursing care, local to 11 trial administrative centres across the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 1042 care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including those with language and cognitive impairments, not receiving end of life care. 114 homes (n=568 residents, 64% from homes providing nursing care) were allocated to the intervention arm and 114 homes (n=474 residents, 65% from homes providing nursing care) to standard care (control arm). Participating care homes were randomised between May 2010 and March 2012. INTERVENTION: Targeted three month programme of occupational therapy, delivered by qualified occupational therapists and assistants, involving patient centred goal setting, education of care home staff, and adaptations to the environment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome at the participant level: scores on the Barthel index of activities of daily living at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures at the participant level: Barthel index scores at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and scores on the Rivermead mobility index, geriatric depression scale-15, and EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, at all time points. RESULTS: 64% of the participants were women and 93% were white, with a mean age of 82.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups for all measures, personal characteristics, and diagnostic tests. Overall, 2538 occupational therapy visits were made to 498 participants in the intervention arm (mean 5.1 visits per participant). No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. 162 (11%) died before the primary outcome time point, and 313 (30%) died over the 12 months of the trial. The primary outcome measure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Barthel index score at three months was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm (95% confidence interval -0.33 to 0.70, P=0.48). Secondary outcome measures also showed no significant differences at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: This large phase III study provided no evidence of benefit for the provision of a routine occupational therapy service, including staff training, for care home residents living with stroke related disabilities. The established three month individualised course of occupational therapy targeting stroke related disabilities did not have an impact on measures of functional activity, mobility, mood, or health related quality of life, at all observational time points. Providing and targeting ameliorative care in this clinically complex population requires alternative strategies.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00757750.

Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of stroke patients experience anxiety at some point after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine if any treatment for anxiety after stroke decreases the proportion of patients with anxiety disorders or symptoms, and to determine the effect of treatment on quality of life, disability, depression, social participation, risk of death or caregiver burden. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Stroke Group (October 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2010), EMBASE (1947 to October 2010), PsycINFO (1806 to October 2010), Allied and Complementary Medicine database (AMED) (1985 to October 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) (1982 to October 2010), Proquest Digital Dissertations (1861 to October 2010), and Psychological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy (PsycBITE) (2004 to October 2010). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched trial registries and major international stroke conference proceedings, scanned reference lists, and contacted select individuals known to the review team who are actively involved in psychological aspects of stroke research, and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. Randomised trials of any intervention in patients with stroke where the treatment of anxiety was an outcome were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for analysis. We performed a narrative review. A meta-analysis was planned but not carried out as studies were not of sufficient quality to warrant doing so. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials (three interventions) involving 175 participants with co-morbid anxiety and depression in the review. Both trials used the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) to assess anxiety, and neither included a placebo control group. One trial randomised 81 patients to paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy or standard care. Mean level of anxiety severity scores were 58% and 71% lower in the paroxetine, and paroxetine plus psychotherapy groups respectively compared with those in standard care at follow-up (P < 0.01). The second trial randomised 94 stroke patients, also with co-morbid anxiety and depression, to receive buspirone hydrochloride or standard care. At follow-up, the mean level of anxiety was significantly lower for those receiving buspirone relative to controls (P < 0.01). Half of the participants receiving paroxetine experienced adverse events that included nausea, vomiting or dizziness; however, only 14% of those receiving buspirone experienced nausea or palpitations. No information was provided about the duration of symptoms associated with adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide the treatment of anxiety after stroke. The data available suggest that pharmaceutical therapy (paroxetine and buspirone) may be effective in reducing anxiety symptoms in stroke patients with co-morbid anxiety and depression. No information was available for stroke patients with anxiety only. Randomised placebo controlled trials are needed.