The sodium-glutamate antagonist riluzole improves outcome after acute spinal cord injury: results from the RISCIS randomised controlled trial analysed using a global statistical analytic technique
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) clinical trials typically rely on a single primary endpoint to assess drug efficacy. This strategy fails to adequately capture the full impact of treatment in heterogenous neurological conditions like SCI. A more patient-centric analysis requires assessment of neurological function, functional capacity, and quality of life, incorporating meaningful patient-reported outcomes. The global statistical test (GST) addresses this challenge using a unified statistical conclusion regarding the superiority of a treatment strategy over another by evaluating multiple trial endpoints simultaneously. METHODS: The RISCIS trial (Safety and Efficacy of Riluzole in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study) data was analysed using a multivariate nonparametric GST, integrating the total American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score (TOTM), Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM), and SF-36 PCS (Short Form-36 Physical Component Scale) scores. In the RISCIS trial, patients with severe cervical SCI (AIS A, B, and C) were randomised to receive riluzole or placebo within 12 h of injury in a double blinded fashion. We compared six-month outcomes between groups using a modified O'Brien's rank sum test with sample variance adjustment. Higher summed ranks represent better global outcomes. The overall probability of improvement was computed using a summary estimate, the global treatment effect (GTE). FINDINGS: A total of 131 patients (mean age 45.8 years old, 82% males) completed the six-month outcome assessment. Among these, 49.6% were classified as AIS A, 20.6% as AIS B, and 29% as AIS C. Riluzole was administered within 12 h from injury for 14 days in 65 patients, while 66 received a placebo. The unadjusted mean change from baseline to six months showed a favourable response in the riluzole group compared to placebo across TOTM (p = 0.28 by t-test; p = 0.26 by Wilcoxon test), SCIM (p = 0.04 by t-test; p = 0.02 by Wilcoxon test), or SF-36 PCS (p = 0.23 by t-test; p = 0.21 by Wilcoxon test) scores. Using the GST to simultaneously assess these measures, the riluzole group exhibited a higher rank sum compared to placebo [median rank sum = 207 (IQR: 166-246) in riluzole vs 185 (IQR: 146-236) in placebo, p = 0.04]. Subgroup analysis revealed the greatest treatment benefit among patients with AIS A injuries (GTE = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.01-0.31, p = 0.02). At six months, the probability that riluzole treatment resulted in overall better outcomes than placebo across all assessed outcomes was 58%. INTERPRETATION: Riluzole was associated with improved global outcomes in patients with severe traumatic SCI, based on a composite score integrating ASIA total motor scores, SCIM, and SF36 outcomes at six months. Riluzole is a promising therapeutic option in SCI, but further investigation through higher-quality studies incorporating multidimensional assessments is warranted. FUNDING: No funding was received for the present work. The original clinical trial (NCT01597518) was funded by the AO Foundation, United States Department of Defense (DOD), and the Praxis Spinal Cord Institute.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».