Dataset Information

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects.

Methods

FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762.

Findings

Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839-1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26-6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38-2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months.

Interpretation

Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function.

Funding

UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

SUBMITTER: FOCUS Trial Collaboration

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6336936 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The Pragmatic Ischaemic Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) trial was a multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone with IVT and adjunctive intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients who had acute ischaemic stroke with large artery occlusive anterior circulation stroke confirmed on CT angiography (CTA). DESIGN:Eligible patients had IVT started within 4.5?hours of stroke symptom onset. Those randomised to additional MT underwent thrombectomy using any Conformité Européene (CE)-marked device, with target interval times for IVT start to arterial puncture of <90?min. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving independence defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at day 90. RESULTS:Ten UK centres enrolled 65 patients between April 2013 and April 2015. Median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 (IQR 13-21). Median stroke onset to IVT start was 120?min. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in disability-free survival at day 90 with MT (absolute difference 11%, adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.94, p=0.20). Secondary analyses showed significantly greater likelihood of full neurological recovery (mRS 0-1) at day 90 (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.6 to 37.2, p=0.010). In the per-protocol population (n=58), the primary and most secondary clinical outcomes significantly favoured MT (absolute difference in mRS 0-2 of 22% and adjusted OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 19.7, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS:The trial did not find a significant difference between treatment groups for the primary end point. However, the effect size was consistent with published data and across primary and secondary end points. Proceeding as fast as possible to MT after CTA confirmation of large artery occlusion on a background of intravenous alteplase is safe, improves excellent clinical outcomes and, in the per-protocol population, improves disability-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01745692; Results.

Project description:Ultrasound accelerates thrombolysis with tPA (sonothrombolysis). Ultrasound in the absence of tPA also accelerates clot break-up (sonolysis). Adding intravenous gaseous microbubbles may potentiate the effect of ultrasound in both sonothrombolysis and sonolysis. The Norwegian Sonothrombolysis in Acute Stroke Study aims in a pragmatic approach to assess the effect and safety of contrast enhanced ultrasound treatment in unselected acute ischaemic stroke patients.Acute ischaemic stroke patients ? 18 years, with or without visible arterial occlusion on computed tomography angiography (CTA) and treatable ? 4(½) hours after symptom onset, are included in NOR-SASS. NOR-SASS is superimposed on a separate trial randomising patients with acute ischemic stroke to either tenecteplase or alteplase (The Norwegian Tenecteplase Stroke Trial NOR-TEST). The NOR-SASS trial has two arms: 1) the thrombolysis-arms (NOR-SASS A and B) includes patients given intravenous thrombolysis (tenecteplase or alteplase), and 2) the no-thrombolysis-arm (NOR-SASS C) includes patients with contraindications to thrombolysis. First step randomisation of NOR-SASS A is embedded in NOR-TEST as a 1:1 randomisation to either tenecteplase or alteplase. Second step NOR-SASS randomisation is 1:1 to either contrast enhanced sonothrombolysis (CEST) or sham CEST. Randomisation in NOR-SASS B (routine alteplase group) is 1:1 to either CEST or sham CEST. Randomisation of NOR-SASS C is 1:1 to either contrast enhanced sonolysis (CES) or sham CES. Ultrasound is given for one hour using a 2-MHz pulsed-wave diagnostic ultrasound probe. Microbubble contrast (SonoVue®) is given as a continuous infusion for ~30 min. Recanalisation is assessed at 60 min after start of CEST/CES. Magnetic resonance imaging and angiography is performed after 24 h of stroke onset. Primary study endpoints are 1) major neurological improvement measured with NIHSS score at 24 h and 2) favourable functional outcome defined as mRS 0-1 at 90 days.NOR-SASS is the first randomised controlled trial designed to test the superiority of contrast enhanced ultrasound treatment given ? 4(½)?hours after stroke onset in an unselected acute ischaemic stroke population eligible or not eligible for intravenous thrombolysis, with or without a defined arterial occlusion on CTA. If a positive effect and safety can be proven, contrast enhanced ultrasound treatment will be an option for all acute ischaemic stroke patients. EudraCT No 201200032341; www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01949961.

Project description:BackgroundIn animal models of ischaemic stroke, 25% albumin reduced brain infarction and improved neurobehavioural outcome. In a pilot clinical trial, albumin doses as high as 2 g/kg were safely tolerated. We aimed to assess whether albumin given within 5 h of the onset of acute ischaemic stroke increased the proportion of patients with a favourable outcome.MethodsWe did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial between Feb 27, 2009, and Sept 10, 2012, at 69 sites in the USA, 13 sites in Canada, two sites in Finland, and five sites in Israel. Patients aged 18-83 years with ischaemic (ie, non-haemorrhagic) stroke with a baseline National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or more who could be treated within 5 h of onset were randomly assigned (1:1), via a central web-based randomisation process with a biased coin minimisation approach, to receive 25% albumin (2 g [8 mL] per kg; maximum dose 750 mL) or the equivalent volume of isotonic saline. All study personnel and participants were masked to the identity of the study drug. The primary endpoint was favourable outcome, defined as either a modified Rankin scale score of 0 or 1, or an NIHSS score of 0 or 1, or both, at 90 days. Analysis was by intention to treat. Thrombolytic therapies were permitted. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00235495.Findings422 participants were randomly assigned to receive albumin and 419 to receive saline. On Sept 12, 2012, the trial was stopped early for futility (n=841). The primary outcome did not differ between patients in the albumin group and those in the saline group (186 [44%] vs 185 [44%]; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·84-1·10, adjusted for baseline NIHSS score and thrombolysis stratum). Mild-to-moderate pulmonary oedema was more common in patients given albumin than in those given saline (54 [13%] of 412 vs 5 [1%] of 412 patients); symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within 24 h was also more common in patients in the albumin group than in the placebo group (17 [4%] of 415 vs 7 [2%] of 414 patients). Although the rate of favourable outcome in patients given albumin remained consistent at 44-45% over the course of the trial, the cumulative rate of favourable outcome in patients given saline rose steadily from 31% to 44%.InterpretationOur findings show no clinical benefit of 25% albumin in patients with ischaemic stroke; however, they should not discourage further efforts to identify effective strategies to protect the ischaemic brain, especially because of preclinical literature showing convincing proof-of-principle for the possibility of this outcome.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, US National Institutes of Health; and Baxter Healthcare Corporation.

Project description:IntroductionNon-specific neck pain causes pain and disability and contributes substantial socioeconomic burden internationally. Up to 50% of adults experience neck pain annually, leading to reduced the quality of life. An active behavioural physiotherapy intervention (ABPI) may be feasible to manage patients with acute non-specific neck pain to prevent transition to chronicity. A recent pilot and feasibility trial investigating an acute whiplash-associated disorder population found potential value of the ABPI with 95% of participants fully recovered (Neck Disability Index: NDI ?4, compared with 17% in the standard physiotherapy arm); supporting a definitive trial. Qualitative findings from the physiotherapists supported the potential of the ABPI in a non-specific neck pain population.Methods and analysisTwo phases: (1) Pragmatic cluster randomised double-blind, parallel 2-arm (ABPI vs standard physiotherapy intervention) pilot and feasibility trial to evaluate the procedures and feasibility of the ABPI for the management of acute non-specific neck pain. Six physiotherapy departments from six public hospitals in Thailand will be recruited and cluster randomised by a computer-generated randomisation sequence with block sampling. Sixty participants (30 each arm, 10 per hospital) will be assessed at baseline and 3 months following baseline for NDI, Numerical Rating Scale for pain intensity, cervical range of motion, fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire and EuroQol-5 dimensions 5 levels outcomes, and (2) Embedded qualitative study using semistructured interviews to explore acceptability of the ABPI to participants (n=12) and physiotherapists (n=3). Descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and interpretative phenomenological analysis to code and analyse qualitative data (deductive and inductive) will inform feasibility for a future definitive trial.Ethics and disseminationThis trial is approved by the Naresuan University Institutional Review Board (NUIRB_0380/61).Trial registration number and statusTCTR20180607001; Recruiting commenced 1 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a subtype of stroke that causes a great amount of disability and economic and social burden. This is particularly true in developing countries where it accounts for between 20% and 50% of all strokes. Pharmacological and surgical interventions have been attempted to reduce the mortality and disability caused by ICH, with unsuccessful results. Recently, the use of fluoxetine in addition to physical rehabilitation has been proven useful to improve motor recovery following cerebral infarct. The purpose of this study is to test whether a 3-month treatment with fluoxetine enhances motor recovery in nondepressed patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage.Methods/designOur study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. We will recruit 86 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage of both sexes, aged >18 years, from four Mexican hospitals. The patients will receive either 20 mg of fluoxetine or a placebo once daily for 90 days. The primary outcome is the mean change in the Fugl-Meyer Motor Scale score between inclusion (day 0) and day 90. The secondary outcomes will be changes in the Barthel Index, the Modified Rankin scale and the National Institutes of Health stroke scale. The outcomes will be measured at day 42 ± 7 days and at day 90, for a total of four visits with each subject (at screening and at 0, 42 and 90 days).DiscussionCurrent guidelines recommend early supported hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation programs as the only cost-effective intervention to aid the recovery of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Nevertheless, such interventions are dependent on available resources and funding, which make them very difficult to implement in developing countries. We believe that the identification of a helpful pharmacological intervention to aid the motor recovery of these patients will constitute a breakthrough that will have a major impact in reducing the burden of disease caused by this subtype of stroke worldwide, especially in the developing world.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials NCT01737541.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the safety and efficacy of etoricoxib, a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor, in comparison with indometacin in the treatment of acute gouty arthritis. DESIGN:Randomised, double blind, active comparator controlled trial. SETTING:43 outpatient study centres in 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS:142 men and eight women (75 patients per treatment group) aged 18 years or over presenting with clinically diagnosed acute gout within 48 hours of onset. INTERVENTIONS:Etoricoxib 120 mg administered orally once daily versus indometacin 50 mg administered orally three times daily, both for 8 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Patients' assessment of pain in the study joint over days 2 to 5 (primary end point); investigators' and patients' global assessments of response to treatment and tenderness of the study joint (key secondary end points). RESULTS:Etoricoxib showed efficacy comparable to indometacin. Patients' assessment of pain in the study joint (0-4 point Likert scale, "no pain" to "extreme pain") over days 2 to 5 showed a least squares mean change from baseline of -1.72 (95% confidence interval -1.90 to -1.55) for etoricoxib and -1.83 (-2.01 to -1.65) for indometacin. The difference between treatment groups met prespecified comparability criteria. All other efficacy end points, including those reflecting reduction in inflammation and analgesia, provided corroborative evidence of comparable efficacy. Significant pain relief was evident at the first measurement, 4 hours after the first dose of treatment. Prespecified safety analyses revealed that drug related adverse experiences occurred significantly less frequently with etoricoxib (22.7%) than with indometacin (46.7%) (P=0.003), although overall adverse experience rates were similar between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION:Etoricoxib 120 mg once daily provides rapid and effective treatment for acute gouty arthritis comparable to indometacin 50 mg three times daily. Etoricoxib was generally safe and well tolerated in this study.