METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The NeST Registry is designed as a product registry that would provide information on the use and safety of NeuroAiD in clinical practice. An online NeST Registry was set up to allow easy entry and retrieval of essential information including demographics, medical conditions, clinical assessments of neurological, functional and cognitive state, compliance, concomitant medications, and side effects, if any, among patients on NeuroAiD. Patients who are taking or have been prescribed NeuroAiD may be included. Participation is voluntary. Data collected are similar to information obtained during standard care and are prospectively entered by the participating physicians at baseline (before initialisation of NeuroAiD) and during subsequent visits. The primary outcome assessed is safety (ie, non-serious and serious adverse event), while compliance and neurological status over time are secondary outcomes. The in-person follow-up assessments are timed with clinical appointments. Anonymised data will be extracted and collectively analysed. Initial target sample size for the registry is 2000. Analysis will be performed after every 500 participants entered with completed follow-up information.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Doctors who prescribe NeuroAiD will be introduced to the registry by local partners. The central coordinator of the registry will discuss the protocol and requirements for implementation with doctors who show interest. Currently, the registry has been approved by the Ethics Committees of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Malaysia) and National Brain Center (Indonesia). In addition, for other countries, Ethics Committee approval will be obtained in accordance with local requirements.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02536079.
METHODS: The CRASH-3 trial randomised 9202 patients within 3 h of injury with a GCS score ≤ 12 or intracranial bleeding on CT scan and no significant extracranial bleeding to receive TXA or placebo. We conducted an exploratory analysis of the effects of TXA on all-cause mortality within 24 h of injury and within 28 days, excluding patients with a GCS score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils, stratified by severity and country income. We pool data from the CRASH-2 and CRASH-3 trials in a one-step fixed effects individual patient data meta-analysis.
RESULTS: There were 7637 patients for analysis after excluding patients with a GCS score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils. Of 1112 deaths, 23.3% were within 24 h of injury (early deaths). The risk of early death was reduced with TXA (112 (2.9%) TXA group vs 147 (3.9%) placebo group; risk ratio [RR] RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94). There was no evidence of heterogeneity by severity (p = 0.64) or country income (p = 0.68). The risk of death beyond 24 h of injury was similar in the TXA and placebo groups (432 (11.5%) TXA group vs 421 (11.7%) placebo group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.69-1.12). The risk of death at 28 days was 14.0% in the TXA group versus 15.1% in the placebo group (544 vs 568 events; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.03). When the CRASH-2 and CRASH-3 trial data were pooled, TXA reduced early death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87) and death within 28 days (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.94).
CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid reduces early deaths in non-moribund TBI patients regardless of TBI severity or country income. The effect of tranexamic acid in patients with isolated TBI is similar to that in polytrauma. Treatment is safe and even severely injured patients appear to benefit when treated soon after injury.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15088122 , registered on 19 July 2011; NCT01402882 , registered on 26 July 2011.
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.