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.

SGLT2 Inhibitor Canagliflozin Alleviates High Glucose-Induced Inflammatory Toxicity in BV-2 Microglia.

Patients with diabetes mellitus can experience hyperglycemia, which affects brain function and produces cognitive impairment or neurodegeneration. Neuroinflammation is an important cause of cognitive dysfunction. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are antihyperglycemic agents that reportedly possess anti-inflammatory properties and may produce beneficial cognitive effects. We hypothesized that SGLT2 inhibitors alleviate hyperglycemia-related inflammation in brain immune cells. Cultured BV-2 microglia were exposed to high glucose (HG) in the absence or presence of SGLT2 inhibitors including canagliflozin (Cana), dapagliflozin (Dapa), empagliflozin (Empa), and ertugliflozin (Ertu). Afterward, we evaluated the cytotoxic and inflammatory responses by specific biochemical assays. Treatments with non-toxic Cana or Dapa, but not Empa or Ertu, inhibited proliferation without cell death. Only Cana rescued BV-2 microglia from HG-induced cytotoxicity, including apoptosis or autophagic degradation. None of SGLT2 inhibitors affected the HG-stimulated induction of stress proteins HO-1 and HSP70. Also, compared to the other three SGLT2 inhibitors, Cana was better at inhibiting HG-induced oxidative/inflammatory stress, as evidenced by its ability to repress proinflammatory factors (e.g., oxygen free radicals, iNOS, NLRP3, IL-1ß, and TNF-α) other than COX-2. Cana's action to alleviate HG insults was mediated not by altering SGLT2 protein expression, but by reducing HG-stimulated signaling activities of NFκB, JNK, p38, and PI3K/Akt pathways. Particularly, Cana imitated the effects of NFκB inhibitor on HG-induced iNOS and COX-2. Of the four SGLT2 inhibitors, Cana provided BV-2 microglia with the best protection against HG-induced inflammatory toxicity. Thus, Cana may help to reduce innate neuroimmune damage caused by hyperglycemia.

Static postural stability and neuropsychological performance after awakening from REM and NREM sleep in patients with chronic insomnia: a randomized, crossover, overnight polysomnography study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Chronic insomnia disorder (CID) is a common sleep disorder, with a prevalence ranging from 6%-10% worldwide. Individuals with CID experience more fragmented sleep than healthy control patients do. They awaken frequently during the night and have a higher risk of injury from falling. Awakening from different sleep stages may have different effects on postural stability and waking performance. However, limited research has been conducted on this topic. METHODS: This prospective randomized crossover study was conducted between January 2015 and January 2017. We included 20 adults aged 20-65 years who fulfilled the diagnosis criteria for CID. Participants underwent 2 overnight polysomnography studies with an interval of at least 7 days. They were awakened during either rapid eye movement (REM) sleep or stage N1/N2 sleep alternatively. We compared measurements of static postural stability, vigilance scores, and neuropsychological tests between REM sleep and stage N1/N2 sleep awakening. RESULTS: Polysomnography parameters between the 2 nights were comparable. Participants who were awakened from REM sleep had worse static postural stability than those with stage N1/N2 sleep awakening. Compared with stage N1/N2 sleep awakening, larger mean sway areas of center of pressure (P = .0413) and longer center-of-pressure mean distances (P = .0139) were found in REM sleep awakening. There were no statistically significant differences in vigilance scores or neuropsychological tests between the 2 nights. CONCLUSIONS: REM sleep awakening was associated with worse static postural stability than was stage N1/N2 sleep awakening. No statistically significant differences were found in waking performance in alertness or in neuropsychological tests between stage N1/N2 and REM sleep awakening. CITATION: Yeh W-C, Chuang Y-C, Yen C-W, et al. Static postural stability and neuropsychological performance after awakening from REM and NREM sleep in patients with chronic insomnia: a randomized, crossover, overnight polysomnography study. J Clin Sleep Med. 2022;18(8):1983-1992.

Non-rapid eye movement sleep instability in adults with epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cyclic alternating pattern.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Epilepsy is characterized by disrupted sleep architecture. Studies on sleep macro- and microstructure revealed that patients with epilepsy experience disturbed rapid eye movement (REM) sleep; however, no consensus has been reached on non-REM (NREM) sleep changes. Cyclic alternating pattern (CAP) is a marker of sleep instability that occurs only during NREM sleep. This meta-analysis investigated CAP differences between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. METHODS: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines in searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central database for studies comparing polysomnographic sleep microstructures between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed. We compared CAP rates, percentages of phase A1, A2, A3 subtypes, and phase B durations between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies, including 209 patients with epilepsy and 197 healthy controls, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Compared with healthy controls, patients with epilepsy had significantly increased CAP rates and decreased A1 subtype percentages, and patients with sleep-related epilepsy had increased A3 subtype percentages. Subgroup analyses revealed that antiseizure medications (ASMs) decreased CAP rates and increased phase B durations but did not affect the microstates of phase A in patients with sleep-related epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis detected statistically significant differences in CAP parameters between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. Our findings suggest patients with epilepsy experience NREM sleep instability. ASMs treatment may decrease NREM instability but did not alter the microstates of phase A.

Rapid eye movement sleep reduction in patients with epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Compared to healthy controls, adults with epilepsy have a disrupted sleep architecture. Changes in sleep macrostructure may be associated with the refractoriness of epilepsy. However, there is no consensus regarding the changes in sleep architecture in patients with epilepsy. This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the differences in sleep architecture between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. METHODS: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched (until May 2021) for studies comparing polysomnographic sleep macrostructures between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The percentage of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, slow-wave sleep (SWS), and sleep efficiency (SE) were compared between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. RESULTS: Overall, 24 studies involving 789 patients with epilepsy and 599 healthy controls fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Compared to healthy controls, patients with focal epilepsy had decreased REM sleep and SE. Patients with generalised epilepsy had increased SWS and decreased SE. Subgroup analyses focussed on the potential effect of seizure control on sleep architecture. The results revealed that both antiseizure medication (ASM)-untreated and treated patients had decreased SE. ASM treatment may restore REM sleep in patients with generalised epilepsy but not in patients with focal epilepsy. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the sleep macrostructure between patients with epilepsy and healthy controls. There were significant differences in the sleep macrostructure between ASM-untreated patients and healthy controls, which may be an intrinsic change attributable to epilepsy.

The association of changes of sleep architecture related to donepezil: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Donepezil had been recognized to have impact on sleep quality in demented patients. However, there was insufficient evidences about the actual effect of donepezil in the sleep architectures. Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the changes of sleep architectures related to donepezil use. METHODS: Followed the PRISMA2020 and AMSTAR2 guidelines, electronic search had been performed on the databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The outcome measurement was changes of sleep parameters detected by polysomnography. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Total twelve studies had been involved. The percentage of REM sleep would significantly increase after donepezil treatment (Hedges' g = 0.694, p < 0.001). Compared to placebo/controls, subjects with donepezil would had significantly increased percentage of REM sleep stage (Hedges' g = 0.556, p = 0.018). Furthermore, donepezil was also associated with the decreased stage 2 sleep percentage, sleep efficiency, or total sleep time in different analysis conditions. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis provided detailed changes of sleep architectures related to donepezil treatment. Further larger sample size studies with stricter control of potential moderators are needed to clarify these issues.

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.

Bisphenol a Induces Autophagy Defects and AIF-Dependent Apoptosis via HO-1 and AMPK to Degenerate N2a Neurons.

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an environmental contaminant widely suspected to be a neurological toxicant. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated close links between BPA exposure, pathogenetic brain degeneration, and altered neurobehaviors, considering BPA a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction. However, the mechanisms of BPA resulting in neurodegeneration remain unclear. Herein, cultured N2a neurons were subjected to BPA treatment, and neurotoxicity was assessed using neuronal viability and differentiation assays. Signaling cascades related to cellular self-degradation were also evaluated. BPA decreased cell viability and axon outgrowth (e.g., by down-regulating MAP2 and GAP43), thus confirming its role as a neurotoxicant. BPA induced neurotoxicity by down-regulating Bcl-2 and initiating apoptosis and autophagy flux inhibition (featured by nuclear translocation of apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF), light chain 3B (LC3B) aggregation, and p62 accumulation). Both heme oxygenase (HO)-1 and AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) up-regulated/activated by BPA mediated the molecular signalings involved in apoptosis and autophagy. HO-1 inhibition or AIF silencing effectively reduced BPA-induced neuronal death. Although BPA elicited intracellular oxygen free radical production, ROS scavenger NAC exerted no effect against BPA insults. These results suggest that BPA induces N2a neurotoxicity characterized by AIF-dependent apoptosis and p62-related autophagy defects via HO-1 up-regulation and AMPK activation, thereby resulting in neuronal degeneration.

The influence of integrated geriatric outpatient clinics on the health care utilization of older people.

BACKGROUND: The number of people aged greater than 65 years is growing in many countries. Taiwan will be a superaged society in 2026, and health care utilization will increase considerably. Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of the geriatric integrated outpatient clinic model for reducing health care utilization by older people. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study. Patients aged greater than 65 years seen at the geriatric outpatient clinic (Geri-OPD) and non-geriatric outpatient clinic (non-Geri-OPD) at a single medical centre were age and sex matched. Data on the number of outpatient clinic visits, emergency department visits, hospitalizations and medical expenditures were collected during the first and second years. A subgroup analysis by Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and older age (age≧80 years) was performed, and the results were compared between the Geri-OPD and non-Geri-OPD groups. RESULTS: A total of 6723 patients were included (3796 women and 2927 men). The mean age was 80.42 ± 6.39 years. There were 1291 (19.2%) patients in the Geri-OPD group and 5432 (80.8%) patients in the non-Geri-OPD group. After one year of regular follow-up, the Geri-OPD patients showed a significant reduction in the types of drugs included in each prescription (5.62 ± 10.85) and the number of clinic visits per year (18.18 ± 48.85) (P < 0.01). After a two-year follow-up, the number of clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations and the annual medical costs were still decreased in the Geri-OPD patients. The Geri-OPD patients had more comorbidities and a higher rate of health care utilization than the non-Geri-OPD patients. In the subgroup analysis, patients with more comorbidities (CCI≧2) and an older age (≧80 years) in the Geri-OPD group showed a significant reduction in health care utilization. The Geri-OPD patients also showed a significant decrease in medical utilization in the second year compared with the non-Geri-POD patients. CONCLUSION: The Geri-OPD reduced medical costs, the number of drugs prescribed, and the frequency of outpatient clinic visits, emergency department visits and hospitalizations in older patients with complicated conditions. The effect was even better in the second year.

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.

Narcolepsy and 2009 H1N1 pandemic vaccination in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Several European countries have observed an association between narcolepsy and H1N1 vaccines containing AS03® adjuvant in children/adolescents. In Taiwan, a nationwide campaign starting November 2009 administered H1N1 vaccines without adjuvant or with MF59® adjuvant to 67% of children and 12% of adults. METHODS: For those registered in the 2000-2012 National Health Insurance (NHI) databases, we compared age-stratified (0-4, 5-18, 19-59, and ≥60 years) incidence of first referral for a diagnostic MSLT for the pre-pandemic, pandemic/pre-vaccination, and vaccination/post-pandemic period. We also compared the odds of H1N1 vaccination in each chart-ascertained narcolepsy patient, whoever had an onset of excessive daytime sleepiness between April 2009 and December 2012, with 10 population-based controls from the NHI databases on year of birth, sex, and index date, using conditional logistic regressions. RESULTS: Incidence of MSLT referral for narcolepsy was highest and significantly increased in the pandemic/pre-vaccination period in the age group 5-18 (IRR 3.40, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.12-5.45) and 19-59 (IRR 2.90, 95% CI 1.62-5.02) years. Among 137 confirmed narcolepsy cases (86 adults and 51 children), the odds ratios (ORs) were 1.67 (95% CI 0.81-3.45) (adults) and 1.22 (95% CI 0.62-2.39) (children) for H1N1 vaccination without adjuvant, and 1.39 (95% CI 0.17-11.48) (adults) and 3.66 (95% CI 0.37-36.02) (children) with MF59® adjuvant. CONCLUSION: No substantial association between the use of H1N1 vaccines and narcolepsy was identified in Taiwan. Instead, the H1N1 infection itself could have played a role in triggering narcolepsy in children and young adults.

Fluoxetine for stroke recovery: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

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.

Acute glucose fluctuation impacts microglial activity, leading to inflammatory activation or self-degradation.

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's dementia and cognitive decline. The cause of neurodegeneration in chronic diabetic patients remains unclear. Changes in brain microglial activity due to glycemic fluctuations may be an etiological factor. Here, we examined the impact of acute ambient glucose fluctuations on BV-2 microglial activity. Biochemical parameters were assayed and showed that the shift from normal glucose (NG; 5.5 mM) to high glucose (HG; 25 mM) promoted cell growth and induced oxidative/inflammatory stress and microglial activation, as evidenced by increased MTT reduction, elevated pro-inflammatory factor secretion (i.e., TNF-α and oxygen free radicals), and upregulated expression of stress/inflammatory proteins (i.e., HSP70, HO-1, iNOS, and COX-2). Also, LPS-induced inflammation was enlarged by an NG-to-HG shift. In contrast, the HG-to-NG shift trapped microglia in a state of metabolic stress, which led to apoptosis and autophagy, as evidenced by decreased Bcl-2 and increased cleaved caspase-3, TUNEL staining, and LC3B-II expression. These stress episodes were primarily mediated through MAPKs, PI3K/Akt, and NF-κB cascades. Our study demonstrates that acute glucose fluctuation forms the stress that alters microglial activity (e.g., inflammatory activation or self-degradation), representing a novel pathogenic mechanism for the continued deterioration of neurological function in diabetic patients.

Obstructive sleep apnea and cerebral white matter change: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can cause sleep fragmentation and intermittent hypoxemia, which are linked to oxidative stress. White matter changes (WMCs) representing cerebrovascular burden and are at risk factor for oxidative ischemic injury. The current study explores the mutual relationships between OSA and WMCs. We performed a systematic review of electronic databases for clinical studies investigating OSA and WMCs. Random-effects models were used for pooled estimates calculation. A total of 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results revealed a significantly higher prevalence rate of WMCs [odds ratio (OR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52-2.80, p < 0.001] and significantly higher severity of WMCs (Hedges' g = 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.40, p = 0.009) in the patients with OSA than in controls. Furthermore, the results revealed a significantly higher apnea-hypopnea index (Hedges' g = 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.78, p < 0.001) and significantly higher prevalence rate of moderate-to-severe OSA (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.44-5.66, p = 0.003) in the patients with WMCs than in controls, however there was no significant difference in the prevalence rate of mild OSA between the patients with WMCs and controls (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.20-2.54, p = 0.603). OSA was associated with a higher prevalence and more severe WMCs, and the patients with WMCs had an increased association with moderate-to-severe OSA. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials with a longitudinal design are essential to further evaluate treatment in patients with OSA.

Basal sympathetic predominance in periodic limb movements in sleep after continuous positive airway pressure.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the basal autonomic regulation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) showing periodic limb movements in sleep (PLMS) emerging after therapy with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). METHODS: Data of patients with OSA undergoing a first polysomnography for diagnosis and a second polysomnography for therapy with CPAP were reviewed. Patients with OSA showing PLMS on the first polysomnography were excluded. By using heart rate variability analysis, epochs without any sleep events and continuous effects from the second polysomnography were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Of 125 eligible patients, 30 with PLMS after therapy with CPAP (PLMS group) and 30 not showing PLMS on both polysomnography (non-PLMS group) were randomly selected for the analysis. No significant differences in the demographic characteristics and variables of polysomnographies were identified between the groups. Although one trend of low root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) between intervals of adjacent normal heart beats (NN intervals) in the PLMS group was observed, patients in the PLMS group had significantly low normalized high-frequency (n-HF) and high-frequency (HF) values, but high normalized low frequency (n-LF) and high ratio of LF to HF (LF/HF ratio). After adjustment for confounding variables, PLMS on the second polysomnography was significantly associated with RMSSD (ß = - 6.7587, p = 0.0338), n-LF (ß = 0.0907, p = 0.0148), n-HF (ß = - 0.0895, p = 0.0163), log LF/HF ratio (ß = 0.4923, p = 0.0090), and log HF (ß = - 0.6134, p = 0.0199). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OSA showing PLMS emerging after therapy with CPAP may have a basal sympathetic predominance with potential negative cardiovascular effects.