Article

Methylprednisolone and acute spinal cord injury: an update of the randomized evidence.

Department of Epidemiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 60 College Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA.
Spine (Impact Factor: 2.16). 01/2002; 26(24 Suppl):S47-54.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Randomized trials are widely recognized as providing the most reliable evidence for assessing efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions. This evidence base is used to evaluate the current status of methylprednisolone (MPSS) in the early treatment of acute spinal cord injury.
Medline, CINAHL, and other specified databases were searched for MeSH headings "methylprednisolone and acute spinal cord injury." The Cochrane Library and an existing systematic review on the topic were also searched.
Five randomized controlled trials were identified that evaluated high-dose MPSS for acute spinal cord injury. Three trials by the NASCIS group were of high methodologic quality, and a Japanese and French trial of moderate to low, methodologic quality. Meta-analysis of the final result of three trials comparing 24-hour high-dose MPSS with placebo or no therapy indicates an average unilateral 4.1 motor function score improvement (95% confidence interval 0.6-7.6, P = 0.02) in patients treated with MPSS. This neurologic recovery is likely to be correlated with improved functional recovery in some patients. The safety of this regimen of MPSS is evident from the spinal cord injury trials and a systematic review of 51 surgical trials of high-dose MPSS.
High-dose MPSS given within 8 hours of acute spinal cord injury is a safe and modestly effective therapy that may result in important clinical recovery for some patients. Further trials are needed to identify superior pharmacologic therapies and to test drugs that may sequentially influence the postinjury cascade.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is an expert consensus on the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar spinal injury, established from February 2009 to July 2010. The expert consensus consists mainly of six parts with a total of 54 recommendations including the overview (one item); pre-hospital care (one item); evaluation and diagnosis (13 items); treatment (23 items); prevention and treatment of major complications (12 items); and rehabilitation (four items). This is the first time that Chinese experts have published a consensus on spine and spinal cord injury. The expert consensus was established based on Delphi methods, literature analysis, and clinical experiences. Each recommendation is supported by and was interpreted using multi-level evidences. The level of agreement with the recommendation among the panel members was assessed as either low, moderate, or strong. Each panel member was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement on a 5-point scale, with "1" corresponding to neutrality and "5" representing maximum agreement. Scores were aggregated across the panel members and an arithmetic mean was calculated. This mean score was then translated into low, moderate, or strong. After all of the votes were collected and calculated, the results showed no low-level recommendations, 10 moderate-level recommendations, and 44 strong-level recommendations. An expert consensus was reached and was recognized by Chinese spine surgeons. Wide-scale adoption of these recommendations is urgent in the management of acute thoracolumbar spine and spinal cord injury in a broader attempt to create a standard evaluation and treatment strategy for acute thoracolumbar spine and spinal cord injury in China.
    Neural Regeneration Research 11/2013; 8(33):3077-86. · 0.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine 06/2013; 20::289-391. · 0.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) results in partial to full paralysis of the upper and lower extremities. Traditional primary endpoints for acute SCI clinical trials are too broad to assess functional recovery in cervical subjects, raising the possibility of false positive outcomes in trials for cervical SCI. Endpoints focused on the recovery of hand and arm control (e.g., upper extremity motor score, motor level change) show the most potential for use as primary outcomes in upcoming trials of cervical SCI. As the field moves forward, the most reliable way to ensure meaningful clinical testing in cervical subjects may be the development of a composite primary endpoint that measures both neurological recovery and functional improvement.
    Neural Regeneration Research 08/2014; 9(16):1493-7. · 0.14 Impact Factor