Safety of pharmacological augmentation of XXXX rehabilitation.

@entity1 @entity64 @entity322 @entity63 @entity344 @entity177 @entity750 @entity933
BACKGROUND: Based on experimental studies, pharmacological augmentation (PA) of @entity64 rehabilitation might be reasonable. Whether PA is beneficial in clinical practice is unclear. METHODS: We performed an observational study on the use of PA in addition to regular rehabilitative therapies in a @entity64 rehabilitation unit. Over 20 months, we systematically observed (1) the utilization rate of PA, (2) possible adverse events, and (3) the functional outcome of @entity1 with versus without PA (non-PA). The primary outcome variable was the increase in abilities in activities of daily living during in-hospital rehabilitation as quantified by the delta 'functional independence measure' ( @entity177 ). RESULTS: Ninety-seven of 249 (39%) @entity1 had PA. L-Dopa was used in 63 (65%), acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in 33 (34%), and selective @entity750 reuptake inhibitors in 31 (32%) PA @entity1 . In 11 (11%) @entity1 , PA was associated with @entity933 (n = 4), @entity344 (n = 4), electrolyte disorders (n = 2), or @entity322 (n = 1). All adverse events were temporary. PA @entity1 did not differ from non-PA @entity1 in age (74 vs. 73 years; p = 0.62), gender ratio, and @entity64 type ( @entity63 85 vs. 82%; p = 0.49). However, compared with non-PA @entity1 , PA @entity1 were more severely affected (median NIH Stroke Scale Score 7 vs. 4; p < 0.001; median @entity177 58 vs. 85; p = 0.01). At discharge, the PA group had a higher median /\ @entity177 compared with non-PA @entity1 (16 vs. 9; p = 0.01). None of the PA @entity1 but 5 (3.3%) of the non-PA @entity1 had died. CONCLUSION: PA of @entity64 rehabilitation was used frequently. The absence of safety concerns suggests that there is scope for benefit from PA in @entity64 rehabilitation. A large randomized controlled trial seems feasible and ethically justified.
