Andersen 2013.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | Multicentre Study type: interventional (clinical trial) Intervention model: parallel assignment Primary purpose: treatment |
|
Participants | 642 participants Country: Denmark Setting: inpatient At randomisation number allocated: citalopram n = 319; placebo n = 323 % male at baseline: citalopram n = 199/319 (62%); placebo n = 222/323 (69%) Age at baseline: mean age, citalopram 68 ± 13 (n = 319); placebo 68 ± 13 (n = 323) Subtype of stroke at baseline: not available Severity of stroke at baseline: NIHSS, citalopram 5.3 ± 5.6; placebo 4.8 ± 4.8 Time since stroke onset: mean time from last known 'well' to first treatment 1.7 days (median 1, IQR 0 to 6) Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion Criteria
|
|
Interventions | Experimental: citalopram 20 mg (10 mg if aged ≥ 65 years or having reduced liver/kidney function) or placebo once daily for 6 months Comparator: ½ to 2 tablets with no intrinsic drug activity per day for 6 months |
|
Outcomes | Primary outcomes
Secondary outcomes within or at 6 months
|
|
Funding source | TrygFonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Regional Medicine Fund, and the Aarhus University Research Foundation | |
Notes | Dates study conducted: September 2013 to December 2016 Declarations of Interest: Dr Kraglund received speaker honoraria from Bristol‐Meyers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr Iversen received speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer and has previously participated in advisory board meetings for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Dr Grove has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, MSD, and Pfizer and has previously participated in advisory board meetings for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol‐Myers Squibb. Dr Andersen reports other from MSD, personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "A computer‐generated randomization code was used to randomize patients in blocks of 10." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Citalopram was commercially available (Sandoz, Denmark) and production of the placebo and randomization was prepared by a pharmacy independently of the investigators (Glostrup Pharmacy, Denmark). The tablets were indistinguishable and were supplied in numbered containers." |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding of participant, care provider, and investigator assured and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Blinding of outcome assessor assured and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Attrition/exclusions reported with reasons provided (including did not start on study medication, consent withdrawn, side effects, indication for open label, other reasons (no detail provided)). At < 31 days of study medication, twice as many participants in the citalopram group withdrew consent (n = 29/318 (9%)) compared to the placebo group (n = 14/320 (4%)). However, at < 31 days twice as many participants in the placebo group (n = 12/318(4%)) compared to the citalopram group (n = 6/320 (2%) were switched to open label. Attrition/exclusions: 51/319 (16%) in the citalopram group and 39/319 (11%) in the placebo group. The investigators use LOCF in their intention‐to‐treat analysis. LOCF assumes that missing values are missing completely at random and ignores improvements or deteriorations in the participants condition since dropout and therefore stops improvements or declines in outcome measures. LOCF introduces risk of false or biased conclusions (Molnar 2008) |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The study protocol is available and all of the study's prespecified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest to the review have been reported in the prespecified way |
Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |