METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey using a 36-item questionnaire was conducted among country representatives to AOAN from August 2015 to August 2016.
RESULTS: A total of 18/20 AOAN member countries participated in the survey. All the countries have organized association with regular meetings, election of officers and neurology training program. In 9/18 countries, professionals other than neurologists were eligible for affiliation. In 11/18 countries, prior Internal medicine training (or equivalent postgraduate housemanship) is prerequisite to neurology program. Recertification examination is not a practice, but submission of CME is required in 7/18 countries to maintain membership. 12/18 countries publish peer-reviewed journals with at least 1 issue per year. Subspecialty training is offered in 14/18 countries. The ratio of neurologist to population ranges from 1:14,000 to as low as 1:32 million with 9/18 having <1 neurologist per 100,000 population. 6/18 countries have at least 1 specialized center solely for neurological diseases. In government-funded hospitals, the lag time to be seen by a neurologist and/or obtain neuroimaging scan ranges from 1day to 3months. All except one country have several medical- and lay- advocacy or support groups for different neurological conditions.
IMPLICATIONS: The data generated can be used for benchmarking to improve neurological care, training, collaborative work and research in the field of neurosciences among the AOAN member countries. The paper presented several strategies used by the different organizations to increase their number of neurologists and improve the quality of training. Sharing of best practices, academic networking, exchange programs and use of telemedicine have been suggested.
METHODS: Data from the CHInese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke (CHIMES) and CHIMES-Extension (CHIMES-E) studies were analyzed. CHIMES-E was a 24-month follow-up study of subjects included in CHIMES, a multi-centre, double-blind placebo-controlled trial which randomized subjects with acute ischemic stroke, to either MLC601 or placebo for 3 months in addition to standard stroke treatment and rehabilitation. Subjects were stratified according to whether they received or did not receive persistent rehabilitation up to month (M)3 (non- randomized allocation) and by treatment group. The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index were assessed at month (M) 3, M6, M12, M18, and M24.
RESULTS: Of 880 subjects in CHIMES-E, data on rehabilitation at M3 were available in 807 (91.7%, mean age 61.8 ± 11.3 years, 36% female). After adjusting for prognostic factors of poor outcome (age, sex, pre-stroke mRS, baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale, and stroke onset-to-study-treatment time), subjects who received persistent rehabilitation showed consistently higher treatment effect in favor of MLC601 for all time points on mRS 0-1 dichotomy analysis (ORs 1.85 at M3, 2.18 at M6, 2.42 at M12, 1.94 at M18, 1.87 at M24), mRS ordinal analysis (ORs 1.37 at M3, 1.40 at M6, 1.53 at M12, 1.50 at M18, 1.38 at M24), and BI ≥95 dichotomy analysis (ORs 1.39 at M3, 1.95 at M6, 1.56 at M12, 1.56 at M18, 1.46 at M24) compared to those who did not receive persistent rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS: More subjects on MLC601 improved to functional independence compared to placebo among subjects receiving persistent rehabilitation up to M3. The larger treatment effect of MLC601 was sustained over 2 years which supports the hypothesis that MLC601 combined with rehabilitation might have beneficial and sustained effects on neuro-repair processes after stroke. There is a need for more data on the effect of combining rehabilitation programs with stroke recovery treatments.