Legg Lynn A, Tilney Russel, Hsieh Cheng-Fang, Wu Simiao, Lundström Erik, Rudberg Ann-Sofie, Kutlubaev Mansur A, Dennis Martin, Soleimani Babak, Barugh Amanda, Hackett Maree L, Hankey Graeme J, Mead Gillian E
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK, PA2 9PN.
Mater Dei Hospital, Department of Medicine, Msida, Malta.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 26;2019(11):CD009286. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009286.pub3.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 (I = 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.
中风是导致成人残疾的主要原因。选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRIs)多年来一直用于治疗中风后的抑郁及其他情绪障碍。2012年Cochrane关于SSRIs用于中风康复的综述表明,其对康复有积极作用,即使随机分组时无抑郁症状的患者也如此。最近一项关于氟西汀用于中风康复的大型试验(氟西汀与监督下的安慰剂对照)已发表,现更新证据很有必要。
确定SSRIs在改善中风后不到12个月患者的预后方面是否比安慰剂或常规治疗更有效,并确定使用SSRIs治疗是否会产生不良反应。
本次更新中,我们检索了Cochrane中风组试验注册库(最后检索时间为2018年7月16日)、Cochrane对照试验注册库(CENTRAL,2018年7月第12期第7卷)、MEDLINE(1946年至2018年7月)、Embase(1974年至2018年7月)、CINAHL(1982年至2018年7月)、PsycINFO(1985年至2018年7月)、AMED(1985年至2018年7月)以及2012年3月至2018年7月的PsycBITE。我们还检索了灰色文献和临床试验注册库。
我们纳入了在中风后第一年任何时间招募缺血性或出血性中风幸存者的随机对照试验(RCT)。干预措施为任何剂量、任何疗程、用于任何适应症的任何SSRIs。我们排除了具有混合药理作用的药物。对照为常规治疗或安慰剂。纳入的试验必须收集至少一项我们的主要结局(残疾评分或独立性)或次要结局(损伤、抑郁、焦虑、生活质量体力、医疗费用、死亡、不良事件及提前退出试验)的数据。
我们提取了关于人口统计学、中风类型、中风后时间、主要和次要结局以及偏倚来源的数据。两位综述作者独立从每个试验中提取数据。我们使用标准化均数差(SMD)来估计连续变量的治疗效果,使用风险比(RR)来估计二分变量的效果,并给出其95%置信区间(CI)。我们评估了偏倚风险并应用了GRADE标准。
我们共识别出63项符合条件的试验,涉及9168名参与者,其中大多数仅在治疗结束时提供数据,未提供随访数据。年龄范围广泛。约一半的试验要求参与者有抑郁症状才能进入试验。试验之间的疗程、药物和剂量各不相同。纳入的试验中只有三项在关键的“偏倚风险”领域处于低偏倚风险。对这三项试验的荟萃分析发现,SSRI对残疾评分几乎没有影响:SMD -0.01(95%CI -0.09至0.06;P = 0.75;2项研究)或独立性:RR 1.00(95%CI 0.91至1.09;P = 0.99;3项研究,3249名参与者;中等质量证据)。我们因结果不精确而对这两个结局进行了降级。SSRIs降低了平均抑郁评分(SMD低0.11,低0.19至低0.04;2项研究,2861名参与者;中等质量证据),但与安慰剂相比,接受SSRIs治疗的参与者中观察到的胃肠道副作用数量更多(RR 2.19,95%CI 1.00至4.76;P = 0.05;2项研究,148名参与者;中等质量证据),且无异质性证据(I² = 0%)。对于癫痫发作,没有证据表明存在实质性差异。当我们在敏感性分析中纳入所有试验时,无论偏倚风险如何,SSRIs似乎降低了残疾评分,但未降低依赖性。一项大型试验(FOCUS)主导了结果。我们识别出几项正在进行的试验,包括两项大型试验,这两项试验共将招募超过3000名参与者。
我们没有发现可靠证据表明SSRIs应常规用于促进中风后的康复。对低偏倚风险试验的荟萃分析表明,SSRIs不能改善中风后的康复。我们仅在纳入高偏倚风险试验的分析中发现了残疾方面的潜在改善。需要对正在进行的大型试验进行进一步的荟萃分析,以确定这些发现的普遍性。