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.

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.