4.3 Article

Role of citicoline and choline in the treatment of post-stroke depression: an exploratory study

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03000605211055036

关键词

Anxiety; depression; citicoline; choline; post-stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of SSRIs and nootropic drugs in treating depression and anxiety symptoms in post-stroke patients. Results showed that the SSRI group had better outcomes in reducing depression and anxiety compared to the nootropic group. Nootropic drugs may be a valid therapeutic strategy for managing mild-moderate anxiety or anxious-depressive syndrome in post-stroke patients, but further research is needed.
Objective To compare selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and nootropic drugs in the reduction of anxiety and depressive symptoms in post-stroke patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with post-stroke depression that were treated with either SSRIs or nootropic drugs (i.e. citicoline or choline alphoscerate). Depression and anxiety were assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scales. Statistical associations between the use of nootropic drugs and mood disorder improvements were determined by measuring assessment scores at 6-months. Results A total of 44 post-stroke patients with depression (aged 45-75 years) were enrolled in the study: 20 were treated with SSRIs and 24 received nootropic drugs. From baseline to follow-up, the SSRI group showed a large effect size with regard depression (success rate difference [SRD] 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21, 0.79) and anxiety (SRD 0.49; 95% CI 0.14, 0.74), whereas the nootropic group showed a small effect size for depression (SRD 0.16; 95% CI -0.17, 0.46) and a small effect size for anxiety (SRD 0.36; 95% CI -0.03, 0.62). Conclusion The administration of nootropic drugs could be a valid therapeutic strategy to manage post-stroke patients suffering from mild-moderate anxiety or anxious-depressive syndrome, but this requires further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据