ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2021
NEURoaid II (MLC901) in cognitively Impaired not demenTEd patientS (NEURITES): A pilot double blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Pooled it
- Beyond stroke therapy, neuroaid (a chinese herbal) has an effect on cognition and neurogenesis, a bibliometric study.F1000Research · 2024Pooled it
- Biomaterials for neuroengineering: applications and challenges.Regenerative biomaterials · 2025Review
- NEURoaid II (MLC901) in cognitively Impaired not demenTEd patientS (NEURITES): A pilot double blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of MLC901 in vascular cognitive impairment no dementia (VCIND) patients.
designThis was a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANT: VCIND patients from hospitals in Singapore (67), Vietnam (19), and the Philippines (17) were recruited and followed-up from March 2013 to April 2018.
methodsThe primary outcome was executive function as measured by the Verbal Fluency (VF) and 2-part Color Trails Test (CTT). The mean difference in the scores between baseline and week 12, and baseline and week 24, was compared between MLC901 and placebo using a two-sample t-test.
resultsThe trial randomized 103 subjects: MLC901 (n = 57) and placebo (n = 46). The mean age of participants was 68.3 ± 8.4 years and 38.8% were female. Improvement in executive function with MLC901 was not significantly better than placebo at week 12 (CTT1 mean difference [md] 3.8 seconds, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.0 to 16.5, CTT2 md 10.9 seconds, 95% CI: -0.2 to 22.0), and at week 24 (CTT1 md 2.8 seconds, 95% CI: -8.4 to 14.0, CTT2 md = 4.4 seconds, 95% CI: -8.2 to 16.9). Improvement in VF from baseline was not significantly different between MLC901 and placebo at weeks 12 and 24. There were no significant differences in adverse events (43.5% vs. 56.1%) or serious adverse events (13% vs. 22.8%) in placebo versus MLC901 groups. In post hoc exploratory analysis, the treatment effect of MLC901 on cognitive function appears more apparent in subjects with existing impairment in executive function: CTT2 (md 14.4 seconds [
conclusionsWhilst MLC901 appears to be safe, there was no significant cognitive benefit from MLC901 in the study population. Post hoc hypotheses generating analyses suggest that VCIND patients with existing impairment in executive function may show benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.