Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846631›Full record

Trial reportCerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2017

Prognostic Factors and Pattern of Long-Term Recovery with MLC601 (NeuroAiD™) in the Chinese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke Recovery - Extension Study.

Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian, Chun Fan Lee, Sherry H Young, San San Tay, Thirugnanam Umapathi, Annabelle Y Lao, Herminigildo H Gan, Alejandro C Baroque Ii, Jose C Navarro, Hui Meng Chang and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Narayanaswamy VenketasubramanianRaffles Neuroscience Centre, Singapore, Singapore.
Chun Fan Lee
Sherry H Young
San San Tay
Thirugnanam Umapathi
Annabelle Y Lao
Herminigildo H Gan
Alejandro C Baroque Ii
Jose C Navarro
Hui Meng Chang
Joel M Advincula
Sombat Muengtaweepongsa
Bernard P L Chan
Carlos L Chua
Nirmala Wijekoon
H Asita de Silva
John Harold B Hiyadan
Nijasri C Suwanwela
K S Lawrence Wong
Niphon Poungvarin
Gaik Bee Eow
Christopher L H Chen
CHIMES-E Study Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Chinese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke recovery - Extension (CHIMES-E) study is among the few acute stroke trials with long-term outcome data. We aimed to evaluate the recovery pattern and the influence of prognostic factors on treatment effect of MLC601 over 2 years.

methodsThe CHIMES-E study evaluated the 2 years outcome of subjects aged ≥18 years with acute ischemic stroke, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score 6-14, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤1 included in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MLC601 for 3 months. Standard stroke care and rehabilitation were allowed during follow-up with mRS score being assessed in-person at month (M) 3 and by telephone at M1, M6, M12, M18 and M24.

resultsData from 880 subjects were analyzed. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. The proportion of subjects with mRS score 0-1 increased over time in favor of MLC601 most notably from M3 to M6, thereafter remaining stable up to M24, while the proportion deteriorating to mRS score ≥2 remained low at all time points. Older age (p < 0.01), female sex (p = 0.06), higher baseline NIHSS score (p < 0.01) and longer onset to treatment time (OTT; p < 0.01) were found to be predictors of poorer outcome at M3. Greater treatment effect, with more subjects improving on MLC601 than placebo, was seen among subjects with 2 or more prognostic factors (OR 1.65 at M3, 1.78 at M6, 1.90 at M12, 1.65 at M18, 1.39 at M24), especially in subjects with more severe stroke or longer OTT.

conclusionsThe sustained benefits of MLC601 over 2 years were due to more subjects improving to functional independence at M6 and beyond compared to placebo. Selection of subjects with poorer prognosis, particularly those with more severe NIHSS score and longer OTT delay, as well as a long follow-up period, may improve the power of future trials investigating the treatment effect of neuroprotective or neurorestorative therapies.

Indexed as

AgedAsiaDisability EvaluationDouble-Blind MethodDrugs, Chinese HerbalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuroprotective AgentsOdds RatioRecovery of FunctionRisk FactorsStrokeStroke RehabilitationTime FactorsDrugs, Chinese HerbalNeuroaidNeuroprotective Agents

Identifiers

PMID27846631
PMCPMC5348731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.