Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38904964›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2024

Riluzole for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Secondary Analysis of the CSM-PROTECT Trial.

Michael G Fehlings, Karlo M Pedro, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Jetan H Badhiwala, Henry Ahn, H Francis Farhadi, Christopher I Shaffrey, Ahmad Nassr, Praveen Mummaneni, Paul M Arnold and 14 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Conservative and newer drug treatment for degenerative cervical myelopathy.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Michael G FehlingsDivision of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Karlo M PedroDivision of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mohammed Ali AlviDivision of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jetan H BadhiwalaDivision of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Henry AhnDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
H Francis FarhadiDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Christopher I ShaffreyDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Ahmad NassrDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Praveen MummaneniDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco.
Paul M ArnoldDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City.
W Bradley JacobsDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
K Daniel RiewDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Michael KellyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Diego.
Darrel S BrodkeDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Alexander R VaccaroDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Alan S HilibrandDepartment of Neurosurgery, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.
Jason WilsonDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
James S HarropDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
S Tim YoonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kee D KimDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, Davis, Sacramento.
Daryl R FourneyDivision of Neurosurgery, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Carlo SantaguidaDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Eric M MassicotteDivision of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peng HuangDepartment of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale is the most common scale used to represent outcomes of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); however, it lacks consideration for neck pain scores and neglects the multidimensional aspect of recovery after surgery. Objective: To use a global statistical approach that incorporates assessments of multiple outcomes to reassess the efficacy of riluzole in patients undergoing spinal surgery for DCM. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of prespecified secondary end points within the Efficacy of Riluzole in Surgical Treatment for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy (CSM-PROTECT) trial, a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted from January 2012 to May 2017. Adult surgical patients with DCM with moderate to severe myelopathy (mJOA scale score of 8-14) were randomized to receive either riluzole or placebo. The present study was conducted from July to December 2023. Intervention: Riluzole (50 mg twice daily) or placebo for a total of 6 weeks, including 2 weeks prior to surgery and 4 weeks following surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was a difference in clinical improvement from baseline to 1-year follow-up, assessed using a global statistical test (GST). The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Score (SF-36 PCS), arm and neck pain numeric rating scale (NRS) scores, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score, and Nurick grade were combined into a single summary statistic known as the global treatment effect (GTE). Results: Overall, 290 patients (riluzole group, 141; placebo group, 149; mean [SD] age, 59 [10.1] years; 161 [56%] male) were included. Riluzole showed a significantly higher probability of global improvement compared with placebo at 1-year follow-up (GTE, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.16; P = .02). A similar favorable global response was seen at 35 days and 6 months (GTE for both, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.15; P = .04), although the results were not statistically significant. Riluzole-treated patients had at least a 54% likelihood of achieving better outcomes at 1 year compared with the placebo group. The ASIA motor score and neck and arm pain NRS combination at 1 year provided the best-fit parsimonious model for detecting a benefit of riluzole (GTE, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.16; P = .007). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the CSM-PROTECT trial using a global outcome technique, riluzole was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with DCM. The GST offered probability-based results capable of representing diverse outcome scales and should be considered in future studies assessing spine surgery outcomes.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraeRiluzoleAgedDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuroprotective AgentsSpinal Cord DiseasesSpondylosisTreatment OutcomeNeuroprotective AgentsRiluzole

Identifiers

PMID38904964
PMCPMC11193126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.