Prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms after stroke in young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Young adults with stroke have distinct professional and social roles making them vulnerable to symptoms of post-stroke depression (PSD) and post-stroke anxiety (PSA). Prior reviews have examined the prevalence of anxiety and depression in stroke populations. However, there are a lack of studies that have focused on these conditions in young adults. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on symptoms of PSD, PSA and comorbid PSD/PSA in young adults aged 18 to 55 years of age. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and PsycINFO were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of symptoms of PSD and/or PSA in young adults with stroke from inception until June 23, 2023. We included studies that evaluated depression and/or anxiety symptoms with screening tools or interviews following ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Validated methods were employed to evaluate risk of bias. RESULTS: 4748 patients from twenty eligible studies were included. Among them, 2420 were also evaluated for symptoms of PSA while 847 participants were evaluated for both PSD and PSA symptoms. Sixteen studies were included in the random effects meta-analysis for PSD symptoms, with a pooled prevalence of 31 % (95 % CI 24-38 %). Pooled PSA symptom prevalence was 39 % (95 % CI 30-48 %) and comorbid PSD with PSA symptom prevalence was 25 % (95 % CI 12-39 %). Varying definitions of 'young adult', combinations of stroke subtypes, and methods to assess PSD and PSA contributed to high heterogeneity amongst studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified high heterogeneity in studies investigating the prevalence of symptoms of PSD and PSA in young adults, emphasizing the importance of standardized approaches in future research to gain insight into the outcomes and prognosis of PSD and PSA symptoms following stroke in young adults. Larger longitudinal epidemiological studies as well as studies on tailored interventions are required to address the mental health needs of this important population. FUNDING: None.

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.

ANTECEDENTES: La depresión tiene una morbilidad importante asociada con el accidente cerebrovascular que repercute en la recuperación, pero que a menudo no se detecta o se trata de manera inadecuada. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de las intervenciones farmacológicas, la estimulación cerebral no invasiva, la terapia psicológica o las combinaciones de éstas para tratar la depresión después del accidente cerebrovascular. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Esta es una revisión sistemática continua. Cada dos meses se busca nueva evidencia y la revisión se actualiza cuando se identifica evidencia nueva relevante. Consultar el estado actual de esta revisión en la Base de Datos Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Se realizaron búsquedas en los Registros especializados del Grupo Cochrane de Accidentes cerebrovasculares (Cochrane Stroke) y del Grupo Cochrane de Depresión, ansiedad y neurosis (Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis), en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, otras cinco bases de datos, dos registros de ensayos clínicos, listas de referencias y resúmenes de congresos (febrero de 2022). Se estableció contacto con autores de estudios. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que compararan: 1) intervenciones farmacológicas con placebo; 2) estimulación cerebral no invasiva con estimulación simulada o atención habitual; 3) terapia psicológica con atención habitual o control de atención; 4) intervención farmacológica y terapia psicológica con intervención farmacológica y atención habitual o control de atención; 5) intervención farmacológica y estimulación cerebral no invasiva con intervención farmacológica y estimulación simulada o atención habitual; 6) estimulación cerebral no invasiva y terapia psicológica versus estimulación cerebral simulada o atención habitual y terapia psicológica; 7) intervención farmacológica y terapia psicológica con placebo y terapia psicológica; 8) intervención farmacológica y estimulación cerebral no invasiva con placebo y estimulación cerebral no invasiva; y 9) estimulación cerebral no invasiva y terapia psicológica versus estimulación cerebral no invasiva y atención habitual o control de atención, con la intención de tratar la depresión después del accidente cerebrovascular. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, seleccionaron los estudios, evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo y extrajeron los datos de los estudios incluidos. Se calculó la diferencia de medias (DM) o la diferencia de medias estandarizada (DME) para los datos continuos, y la razón de riesgos (RR) para los datos dicotómicos, con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. La heterogeneidad se evaluó mediante la estadística I² y la certeza de la evidencia según GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 65 ensayos (72 comparaciones) con 5831 participantes. Se dispuso de datos para: 1) 20 comparaciones; 2) nueve comparaciones; 3) 25 comparaciones; 4) tres comparaciones; 5) 14 comparaciones; y 6) una comparación. No se encontraron ensayos para las comparaciones 7 a 9. Comparación 1: Intervenciones farmacológicas Evidencia de certeza muy baja de ocho ensayos indica que las intervenciones farmacológicas disminuyeron el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión (RR 0,70; IC del 95%: 0,55 a 0,88; p = 0,002; ocho ECA; 1025 participantes) al final del tratamiento y evidencia de certeza muy baja de seis ensayos indica que las intervenciones farmacológicas disminuyeron el número de personas con respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento (RR 0,47; IC del 95%: 0,32 a 0,70; p = 0,0002; seis ECA; 511 participantes) en comparación con placebo. Se observaron más eventos adversos relacionados con el sistema nervioso central (SNC) (RR 1,55; IC del 95%: 1,12 a 2,15; p = 0,008; cinco ECA; 488 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) y el sistema gastrointestinal (RR 1,62; IC del 95%: 1,19 a 2,19; p = 0,002; cuatro ECA; 473 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) en el grupo de intervención farmacológica que en el grupo placebo. Comparación 2: Estimulación cerebral no invasiva Evidencia de certeza muy baja de dos ensayos muestra que la estimulación cerebral no invasiva tuvo poco o ningún efecto sobre el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión (RR 0,67; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,14; p = 0,14; dos ECA; 130 participantes) y el número de personas con respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento (RR 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,52 a 1,37; p = 0,49; dos ECA; 130 participantes) en comparación con la estimulación simulada. La estimulación cerebral no invasiva no provocó muertes. Comparación 3: Terapia psicológica Evidencia de certeza muy baja de seis ensayos indica que la terapia psicológica disminuyó el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión al final del tratamiento (RR 0,77; IC del 95%: 0,62 a 0,95; p = 0,01; 521 participantes) en comparación con atención habitual/control de atención. Ningún ensayo de terapia psicológica informó sobre el desenlace respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento. No se encontraron diferencias en el número de muertes o eventos adversos en el grupo de terapia psicológica en comparación con el grupo de control de atención/atención habitual. Comparación 4: Intervenciones farmacológicas con terapia psicológica Ningún ensayo de esta combinación informó sobre los desenlaces principales. El tratamiento combinado no provocó muertes. Comparación 5: Intervenciones farmacológicas con estimulación cerebral no invasiva La estimulación cerebral no invasiva con intervención farmacológica redujo el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión al final del tratamiento (RR 0,77; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 0,91; p = 0,002; tres ECA; 392 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), pero no el número de personas con respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento (RR 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,69 a 1,30; p = 0,75; tres ECA; 392 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) en comparación con el tratamiento farmacológico solo. Evidencia de certeza muy baja de cinco ensayos no indica diferencias en las muertes entre este tratamiento combinado (RR 1,06; IC del 95%: 0,27 a 4,16; p = 0,93; 487 participantes) en comparación con la intervención de tratamiento farmacológico y la estimulación simulada o la atención habitual. Comparación 6: Estimulación cerebral no invasiva con terapia psicológica Ningún ensayo de esta combinación informó sobre los desenlaces principales. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Evidencia de certeza muy baja indica que los tratamientos farmacológicos, las terapias psicológicas y los tratamientos combinados pueden reducir la prevalencia de la depresión, mientras que la estimulación cerebral no invasiva tuvo poco o ningún efecto sobre la prevalencia de la depresión. Las intervenciones farmacológicas se asociaron con eventos adversos relacionados con el SNC y el sistema gastrointestinal. Se necesitan más estudios de investigación antes de poder hacer recomendaciones sobre el uso habitual de dichos tratamientos.

Development of the stroke patient concerns inventory: A modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Stroke survivors often have unmet physical, psychological and/or social concerns. Patient Concerns Inventories (PCIs) have been developed for other health conditions to address concerns. Our objective was to develop a PCI for stroke care. METHODS: This was a development study, including Modified Delphi study design, with academic and healthcare professionals with stroke care expertise. In Stage 1, a draft Stroke PCI (Version 1a) was created through identifying patient-reported concerns post-stroke from three previous studies and through expert panel discussions using Nominal Group Technique. In Stage 2, Version 1a was sent to 92 academic and healthcare professionals with stroke care expertise. Participants ranked their top 20 Stroke PCI items in order of importance and provided feedback. Rankings were converted into scores, and, with the feedback, used to amend the Stroke PCI. Two further rounds of feedback followed until consensus was reached between participants. A final draft of the Stroke PCI was created. RESULTS: In stage 1, 64 potential Stroke PCI items were generated. In Stage 2, 38 participants (41.3%) responded to the request to rank Stroke PCI items. The three highest ranked items were 'Risk of another stroke', 'Walking', 'Recovery'. After three rounds of feedback and amendments, the final draft of the Stroke PCI consisted of 53 items. CONCLUSIONS: A Stroke PCI has been developed using patient-reported concerns in previous studies and input from academic and healthcare professionals. Future work will involve gathering further feedback on the tool and exploring its acceptability and usability in a pilot study.

Lithium and Stroke Recovery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Stroke Models in Rodents and Human Data.

BACKGROUND: Lithium has neuroprotective effects in animal models of stroke, but benefits in humans remain uncertain. This article aims to systematically review the available evidence of the neuroprotective and regenerative effects of lithium in animal models of stroke, as well as in observational and trial stroke studies in humans. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO for preclinical and clinical studies published between January 2000 and September 2021. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted from observational studies. RESULTS: From 1625 retrieved studies, 42 were included in the systematic review. Of those, we identified 36 rodent models of stroke using preinsult or postinsult treatment with lithium, and 6 studies were conducted in human samples, of which 4 could be meta-analyzed. The review of animal models was stratified according to the type of stroke and outcomes. Human data were subdivided into observational and intervention studies. Treatment of rodents with lithium was associated with smaller stroke volumes, decreased apoptosis, and improved poststroke function. In humans, exposure to lithium was associated with a lower risk of stroke among adults with bipolar disorder in 2 of 4 studies. Two small trials showed equivocal clinical benefits of lithium poststroke. CONCLUSIONS: Animal models of stroke show consistent biological and functional evidence of benefits associated with lithium treatment, whereas human evidence remains sparse and inconclusive. The potential role of lithium in poststroke recovery is yet to be adequately tested in humans.

Pharmaceutical interventions for emotionalism after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants may be useful in the treatment of abnormal crying associated with stroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and last updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmaceutical treatment in people with emotionalism after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and three trials registers (May 2022). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing psychotropic medication to placebo in people with stroke and emotionalism (also known as emotional lability, pathological crying or laughing, emotional incontinence, involuntary emotional expression disorder, and pseudobulbar affect). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from all included trials, and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. The primary emotionalism measures were the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in abnormal emotional behaviour at the end of treatment, improved score on the Center for Neurologic Study - Lability Scale (CNS-LS) or Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC), or diminished tearfulness. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new trials for this update. We included seven trials with a total of 239 participants. Two trials had a cross-over design, but outcome data were not available from the first phase (precross-over) in an appropriate format for inclusion as a parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). Thus, the results of the review are based on five trials with a total of 213 participants. It is uncertain whether fluoxetine increases the number of people who have a 50% reduction in emotionalism when compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.77; P = 0.02; 1 trial, 19 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. Sertraline may lead to little to no difference in Center for Neurologic Study - Lability Scale (CNS-LS) scores and Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) scores when compared to placebo (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.50; P = 0.12; 1 trial, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antidepressants probably increase the number of people who experience a reduction in tearfulness (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.86; P = 0.02; 3 trials, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials were found that evaluated the impact of other pharmaceutical interventions. Only two trial authors systematically recorded and reported adverse events, resulting in limited data on the potential harms of treatment. Six trials reported death as an adverse event and found no difference between the groups (antidepressants versus placebo) in the number of deaths reported (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.50; P = 0.61; 172 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This review provides very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants may reduce the frequency and severity of emotionalism. The included trials were small and had some degree of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressants may reduce the frequency and severity of crying or laughing episodes when compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. Our conclusions must be qualified by several methodological deficiencies in the trials and interpreted with caution despite the effect being very large. The effect does not seem specific to one drug or class of drugs. More reliable data are required before appropriate conclusions can be made about the treatment of post-stroke emotionalism. Future trialists investigating the effect of antidepressants in people with emotionalism after stroke should consider developing and using a standardised method to diagnose emotionalism, determine severity, and assess change over time; provide treatment for a sufficient duration and follow-up to better assess rates of relapse or maintenance; and include careful assessment and complete reporting of adverse events.

The effectiveness of postpartum interventions aimed at improving women's mental health after medical complications of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum mental disorders including depression and anxiety are common. Medical complications of pregnancy, such as preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, are thought to increase the risk of mental disorders postpartum. However, it is unclear which interventions may be effective for preventing and/or treating postpartum mental disorders following a medically complicated pregnancy. We aimed to systematically review published literature on the effectiveness of postpartum interventions to improve women's mental health after medical complications of pregnancy. METHODS: Systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021220030) was performed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published 1st Jan 2001-12th August 2021 (2) outcome measures reported on postpartum mental disorders (3) participants had ≥ 1 medical complication during pregnancy (4) intervention entirely postpartum or contained a postpartum component (5) full-text available in English or Chinese. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Criteria Risk of Bias. Random effects inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis was used to pool the individual standardized mean differences (SMD) in depression or anxiety scores between intervention and control groups. RESULTS: Of 5928 studies screened, 9 met inclusion criteria, and were based on non-pharmaceutical, combined lifestyle interventions that began shortly after childbirth, or as part of extended care packages beginning during pregnancy. Of these, 2 were rated as low risk of bias, 1 with some concerns, and 6 were at high risk. Meta-analysis was performed for 8 studies using standardized measures of depression and 7 for anxiety. There were statistically significant reductions in depression (SMD - 1.48; 95%CI: -2.41 to -0.55), and anxiety scores (SMD - 1.98; 95%CI: -3.03 to -0.94) in intervention versus control groups. Considerable heterogeneity was noted for pooled depression (I2 = 97.9%, p < 0.05), and anxiety (I2 = 96.8%, p < 0.05) results. CONCLUSION: Limited intervention studies aimed at improving postpartum mental disorders after medically complicated pregnancy were found, most with a high risk of bias. There was some evidence to suggest that postpartum depression and anxiety scores improved after early intervention. However, in general the current quality of evidence is low. Further, high-quality, interventional research is required in this understudied field.

Mixed methods evaluation to explore participant experiences of a pilot randomized trial to facilitate self-management of people living with stroke: Inspiring virtual enabled resources following vascular events (iVERVE).

INTRODUCTION: Despite digital health tools being popular for supporting self-management of chronic diseases, little research has been undertaken on stroke. We developed and pilot tested, using a randomized controlled design, a multicomponent digital health programme, known as Inspiring Virtual Enabled Resources following Vascular Events (iVERVE), to improve self-management after stroke. The 4-week trial incorporated facilitated person-centred goal setting, with those in the intervention group receiving electronic messages aligned to their goals, versus limited administrative messages for the control group. In this paper, we describe the participant experience of the various components involved with the iVERVE trial. METHODS: Mixed method design: satisfaction surveys (control and intervention) and a focus group interview (purposively selected intervention participants). Experiences relating to goal setting and overall trial satisfaction were obtained from intervention and control participants, with feedback on the electronic message component from intervention participants. Inductive thematic analysis was used for interview data and open-text responses, and closed questions were summarized descriptively. Triangulation of data allowed participants' perceptions to be explored in depth. RESULTS: Overall, 27/54 trial participants completed the survey (13 intervention: 52%; 14 control: 48%); and 5/8 invited participants in the intervention group attended the focus group. Goal setting: The approach was considered comprehensive, with the involvement of health professionals in the process helpful in developing realistic, meaningful and person-centred goals. Electronic messages (intervention): Messages were perceived as easy to understand (92%), and the frequency of receipt was considered appropriate (11/13 survey; 4/5 focus group). The content of messages was considered motivational (62%) and assisted participants to achieve their goals (77%). Some participants described the benefits of receiving messages as a 'reminder' to act. Overall trial satisfaction: Messages were acceptable for educating about stroke (77%). Having options for short message services or email to receive messages was considered important. Feedback on the length of the intervention related to specific goals, and benefits of receiving the programme earlier after stroke was expressed. CONCLUSION: The participant experience has indicated acceptance and utility of iVERVE. Feedback from this evaluation is invaluable to inform refinements to future Phase II and III trials, and wider research in the field. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two consumer representatives sourced from the Stroke Foundation (Australia) actively contributed to the design of the iVERVE programme. In this study, participant experiences directly contributed to the further development of the iVERVE intervention and future trial design.

Effects of Fluoxetine on Outcomes at 12 Months After Acute Stroke: Results From EFFECTS, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Purpose: The EFFECTS (Efficacy of Fluoxetine­a 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, 0.76­1.10]). Patients allocated fluoxetine scored worse on memory with a median value of 89 (interquartile range, 75­100) versus 93 (interquartile range, 82­100); P=0.0021 and communication 93 (interquartile range, 82­100) versus 96 (interquartile range, 86­100); 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. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02683213.

Twelve-Month Outcomes of the AFFINITY Trial of Fluoxetine for Functional Recovery After Acute Stroke: AFFINITY Trial Steering Committee on Behalf of the AFFINITY Trial Collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The AFFINITY trial (Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery) reported that oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and seizures. After trial medication was ceased at 6 months, survivors were followed to 12 months post-randomization. This preplanned secondary analysis aimed to determine any sustained or delayed effects of fluoxetine at 12 months post-randomization. METHODS: AFFINITY was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults (n=1280) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke in the previous 2 to 15 days and persisting neurological deficit who were recruited at 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (4), and Vietnam (10) between 2013 and 2019. Participants were randomized to oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily (n=642) or matching placebo (n=638) for 6 months and followed until 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome was function, measured by the modified Rankin Scale, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes for these analyses included measures of the modified Rankin Scale, mood, cognition, overall health status, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and safety at 12 months. RESULTS: Adherence to trial medication was for a mean 167 (SD 48) days and similar between randomized groups. At 12 months, the distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.46). Compared with placebo, patients allocated fluoxetine had fewer recurrent ischemic strokes (14 [2.18%] versus 29 [4.55%]; P=0.02), and no longer had significantly more falls (27 [4.21%] versus 15 [2.35%]; P=0.08), bone fractures (23 [3.58%] versus 11 [1.72%]; P=0.05), or seizures (11 [1.71%] versus 8 [1.25%]; P=0.64) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke had no delayed or sustained effect on functional outcome, falls, bone fractures, or seizures at 12 months poststroke. The lower rate of recurrent ischemic stroke in the fluoxetine group is most likely a chance finding. Registration: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000774921.

Influence of Including Patients with Premorbid Disability in Acute Stroke Trials: The HeadPoST Experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with premorbid functional impairment are generally excluded from acute stroke trials. We aimed to determine the impact of including such patients in the Head Positioning in acute Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) and early additional impairment on outcomes. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of HeadPoST, an international, cluster-randomized crossover trial of lying-flat versus sitting-up head positioning in acute stroke. Associations of early additional impairment, defined as change in modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores from premorbid levels (estimated at baseline) to Day 7 ("early ΔmRS"), and poor outcome (mRS score 3-6) at Day 90 were determined with generalized linear mixed model. Heterogeneity of the trial treatment effect was tested according to premorbid mRS scores 0-1 versus 2-5. RESULTS: Of 8,285 patients (38.9% female, mean age 68 ± 13 years) with complete data, there were 1,984 (23.9%) with premorbid functional impairment (mRS 2-5). A significant linear association was evident for early ∆mRS and poor outcome (per 1-point increase in ΔmRS, adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27; p < 0.0001). Patients with greater premorbid functional impairment were less likely to develop additional impairment, but their risk of poor 90-day outcome significantly increased with increasing (worse) premorbid mRS scores (linear trend p < 0.0001). There was no heterogeneity of the trial treatment effect by level of premorbid function. CONCLUSIONS: Early poststroke functional impairment that exceeded premorbid levels was associated with worse 90-day outcome, and this association increased with greater premorbid functional impairment. Yet, including premorbid impaired patients in the HeadPoST did not materially affect the subsequent treatment effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HeadPoST is registered at http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162017).

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.

Operational challenges in the implementation of an anti-stigma campaign in rural Andhra Pradesh, India.

BACKGROUND: Despite of literature available on mental health-related stigma interventions, little is reported about the operational challenges faced during the planning, implementation and evaluation phases. METHODS: The Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral and Treatment Mental Health Project was implemented in 42 villages of the West Godavari district in India. Andersen's Behavioural Model for Health Services Use was adopted to understand the factors influencing anti-stigma campaign delivery and the strategies identified to overcome these challenges. RESULTS: The challenges faced during the planning and implementation phase included distance and time taken for travel by the field staff, inadequate mental health services and infrastructure within communities, engagement of community with the field staff and community's poor mental health literacy and knowledge. Strategies used to overcome these challenges were regular engagement with community stakeholders, understanding mental health literacy levels and seeking inputs from the community regarding campaign design, organizing live drama shows at community's preferred time and place and screening of recorded drama video clips where lives shows were difficult. The evaluation phase posed challenges such as non-availability of key stakeholders and inadequate time and funding to evaluate the entire study population. CONCLUSION: The reported findings can help in planning and scaling up of the anti-stigma campaign in large trials in similar settings.

"It's hard for me to tell my story" the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander male clients at a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre using primary health care.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Aboriginal males who use drug and alcohol may experience unique barriers accessing primary health care. This study explores the perceptions of Aboriginal males in treatment for drug and alcohol use around their experiences accessing primary health care, and barriers to access. METHODS: Twenty male Aboriginal clients at a fee-paying residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre completed semi-structured interviews about their primary health care experiences before their stay. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to inductively develop themes. RESULTS: About half the males had regular General Practitioners at a mainstream primary health care service or Aboriginal Medical Service. Positive experiences included having medical needs met or understanding the health information provided; and negative experiences included inefficient health service or system processes or experiencing cultural bias or racism. Barriers included limited access to appointments or to the same GP regularly, long wait times, lack of access to transport, worry or fear about their health or the visit or their complex lives taking priority. CONCLUSION: This research showed that the participants sought out health care and identified barriers to accessing care and potential improvements. SO WHAT?: Access to a regular General Practitioner, continuity of care and culturally appropriate and comprehensive communication techniques are important to facilitate access to primary health care by Aboriginal males. Efforts to enhance access may focus on inherent strengths within Aboriginal communities including focusing on relationships between clinicians and families, providing a welcoming environment and encouraging clients to bring a trusted family member to appointments.

Ethnicity and Other Determinants of Quality of Functional Outcome in Acute Ischemic Stroke: The ENCHANTED Trial.

Background and Purpose- Patient-centered outcomes are important. We aimed to determine predictors of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and develop utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores in thrombolyzed acute ischemic stroke patients from both arms of ENCHANTED (Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study). Methods- ENCHANTED was an international quasi-factorial clinical trial of different doses of intravenous alteplase and intensities of blood pressure control in acute ischemic stroke patients, with outcomes on the 5-Dimensional European Quality of Life Scale and mRS assessed at 90 days post-randomization. Logistic regression models were used to identify baseline predictors of poor HRQoL (≤mean 5-Dimensional European Quality of Life Scale utility scores). Ordinary least squares regression derived utility-weighted mRS scores. Results- In 4016 acute ischemic stroke patients with complete 5-Dimensional European Quality of Life Scale and mRS data, independent predictors of poor HRQoL were older age (odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.12-1.27], per 10-year increase), non-Asian ethnicity (1.91 [1.61-2.27]), greater stroke severity on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (1.11 [1.09-1.12]), diabetes mellitus (1.41 [1.18-1.69]), premorbid disability (mRS score 1 versus 0; 1.62 [1.33-1.97]), large vessel atheromatous pathogenesis (1.32 [1.12-1.54]), and proxy respondent (2.35 [2.01-2.74]). Sensitivity analyses indicate the ethnicity influence on HRQoL was driven by the high proportion of Chinese (62.9% of Asian) participants with better HRQoL compared with non-Chinese or other Asian groups. Derived utility values across mRS scores 0 to 5 were 0.977, 0.885, 0.748, 0.576, 0.194, and -0.174, respectively. Correlations between mRS and 5-Dimensional European Quality of Life Scale scores were stronger in Asians. Conclusions- HRQoL is worse after thrombolyzed acute ischemic stroke in the elderly, non-Asians, with greater initial severity, diabetes mellitus, premorbid disability, due to large vessel atheroma, and proxy assessment. The broader significance of better HRQoL in Asians is tempered by Chinese participants dominating analyses. From utility-weighted mRS scores indicating the greatest steps in mRS scores are between 5 and 3, treatments to avoid major disability provide the greatest benefits for patients. Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01422616.

Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference -0.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.

Cluster-Randomized, Crossover Trial of Head Positioning in Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: The role of supine positioning after acute stroke in improving cerebral blood flow and the countervailing risk of aspiration pneumonia have led to variation in head positioning in clinical practice. We wanted to determine whether outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke could be improved by positioning the patient to be lying flat (i.e., fully supine with the back horizontal and the face upwards) during treatment to increase cerebral perfusion. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial conducted in nine countries, we assigned 11,093 patients with acute stroke (85% of the strokes were ischemic) to receive care in either a lying-flat position or a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees, according to the randomization assignment of the hospital to which they were admitted; the designated position was initiated soon after hospital admission and was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was degree of disability at 90 days, as assessed with the use of the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability and a score of 6 indicating death). RESULTS: The median interval between the onset of stroke symptoms and the initiation of the assigned position was 14 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 35). Patients in the lying-flat group were less likely than patients in the sitting-up group to maintain the position for 24 hours (87% vs. 95%, P<0.001). In a proportional-odds model, there was no significant shift in the distribution of 90-day disability outcomes on the global modified Rankin scale between patients in the lying-flat group and patients in the sitting-up group (unadjusted odds ratio for a difference in the distribution of scores on the modified Rankin scale in the lying-flat group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.10; P=0.84). Mortality within 90 days was 7.3% among the patients in the lying-flat group and 7.4% among the patients in the sitting-up group (P=0.83). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of serious adverse events, including pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Disability outcomes after acute stroke did not differ significantly between patients assigned to a lying-flat position for 24 hours and patients assigned to a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees for 24 hours. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; HeadPoST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02162017 .).

Brain Imaging Signs and Health-Related Quality of Life after Acute Ischemic Stroke: Analysis of ENCHANTED Alteplase Dose Arm.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The influence of specific brain lesions on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is uncertain. We aimed to identify imaging predictors of poor HRQoL in alteplase-treated participants of the alteplase dose arm of the Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED). METHODS: ENCHANTED was an international trial of low- versus standard-dose intravenous alteplase in AIS patients, with functional outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS]) and HRQoL on the 5-dimension European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D) assessed at 90 days post-randomization. Brain images were analyzed centrally by trained assessors. Multivariable logistic regression was undertaken in the study population randomly divided (2:1) into training (development) and validation (performance) groups, with age (per 10-year increase), ethnicity, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, diabetes mellitus, premorbid function (mRS score 0 or 1), and proxy respondent, forced into all models. Data are presented with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Eight prediction models were developed and validated in 2,526 AIS patients (median age 67.5 years; 38.4% female; 61.7% Asian) with complete brain imaging and 90-day EQ-5D utility score data. The best performance model included acute ischemic changes in the right (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.24-2.29) and deep (OR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.03-2.19) middle cerebral artery (MCA) regions. Several background features of brain frailty - atrophy, white matter change, and old infarcts - were significantly associated with adverse physical but not emotional HRQoL domains. CONCLUSIONS: In thrombolysed AIS patients, right-sided and deep ischemia within the MCA territory predict poor overall HRQoL, whilst features of old cerebral ischemia are associated with reduced physical HRQoL.

Pharmacological, psychological and non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for preventing depression after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Depression is an important consequence of stroke that influences recovery yet often is not detected, or is inadequately treated. This is an update and expansion of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 and previously updated in 2008. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that pharmacological, psychological therapy, non-invasive brain stimulation, or combinations of these interventions reduce the incidence of diagnosable depression after stroke. Secondary objectives are to test the hypothesis that pharmacological, psychological therapy, non-invasive brain stimulation or combinations of these interventions reduce levels of depressive symptoms and dependency, and improve physical functioning after stroke. We also aim to determine the safety of, and adherence to, the interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of Cochrane Stroke and the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis (last searched August 2018). In addition, we searched the following databases; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2018), Embase (1980 to August 2018), PsycINFO (1967 to August 2018), CINAHL (1982 to August 2018) and three Web of Science indexes (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 and ClinicalTrials.gov; to August 2018), conference proceedings; we also contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: 1) pharmacological interventions with placebo; 2) one of various forms of psychological therapy with usual care and/or attention control; 3) one of various forms of non-invasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation or usual care; 4) a pharmacological intervention and one of various forms of psychological therapy with a pharmacological intervention and usual care and/or attention control; 5) non-invasive brain stimulation and pharmacological intervention with a 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 preventing depression after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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 assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (21 interventions), with 1771 participants in the review. Data were available for 12 pharmacological trials (14 interventions) and seven psychological trials. There were no trials of non-invasive brain stimulation compared with sham stimulation or usual care, a combination of pharmacological intervention and one of various forms of psychological therapy with placebo and psychological therapy, or a combination of non-invasive brain stimulation and a pharmacological intervention with a pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care to prevent depression after stroke. Treatment effects were observed on the primary outcome of meeting the study criteria for depression at the end of treatment: there is very low-certainty evidence from eight trials (nine interventions) that pharmacological interventions decrease the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.68; 734 participants) compared to placebo. There is very low-certainty evidence from two trials that psychological interventions reduce the proportion of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94, 607 participants) compared to usual care and/or attention control. Eight trials (nine interventions) found no difference in death and other adverse events between pharmacological intervention and placebo groups (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.91; 496 participants) based on very low-certainty evidence. Five trials found no difference in psychological intervention and usual care and/or attention control groups for death and other adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.91; 975 participants) based on very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that pharmacological interventions and psychological therapy may prevent depression and improve mood after stroke. However, there is very low certainty in these conclusions because of the very low-certainty evidence. More trials are required before reliable recommendations can be made about the routine use of such treatments after stroke.

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.

Fluoxetine and Fractures After Stroke: Exploratory Analyses From the FOCUS Trial.

Background and Purpose- The FOCUS trial (Fluoxetine or Control Under Supervision) showed that fluoxetine did not improve modified Rankin Scale scores (mRS) but increased the risk of fractures. We aimed to describe the fractures, their impact on mRS and factors associated with fracture risk. Methods- A United Kingdom, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients ≥18 years with a clinical stroke and persisting deficit assessed 2 to 15 days after onset were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mRS at 6 months and secondary outcomes included fractures. Results- Sixty-five of 3127 (2.1%) patients had 67 fractures within 6 months of randomization; 43 assigned fluoxetine and 22 placebo. Fifty-nine (90.8%) had fallen and 26 (40%) had fractured their neck of femur. The effect of fluoxetine on mRS (common odds ratio =0.951) was not significantly altered by excluding fracture patients (common odds ratio =0.961). Cox proportional hazards modeling showed that only age >70 year (hazard ratio =1.97; 95% CI, 1.13-3.45; P=0.017), female sex (hazard ratio =2.13; 95% CI, 1.29-3.51; P=0.003), and fluoxetine (hazard ratio =2.00; 95% CI, 1.20-3.34; P=0.008) were independently associated with fractures. Conclusions- Most fractures resulted from falls. Although many fractures were serious, and likely to impair patients' function, the increased fracture risk did not explain the lack of observed effect of fluoxetine on mRS. Only increasing age, female sex, and fluoxetine were independent predictors of fractures. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN83290762.