Tolerability and effectiveness of every-other-day atorvastatin compared to daily atorvastatin in patients with muscle symptoms: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Despite limited evidence, non-daily dosing of statins is recommended for managing muscle symptoms associated with statin therapy. We assessed the tolerability and effectiveness of every-other-day atorvastatin compared to daily atorvastatin in patients having muscle symptoms associated with atorvastatin therapy. A parallel-group, outcome-assessment-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Colombo South Teaching Hospital, Sri Lanka. Patients with muscle pain, tenderness or cramps alone or in combination for ≥2 weeks while on daily atorvastatin for ≥1 month, with no alternative cause, were recruited. Patient's regular atorvastatin dose was given every-other-day to those in intervention group (IG) and daily to those in control group (CG). Primary outcomes were assessed at 24 weeks and included composite of myalgia and myositis, LDL-cholesterol level and percentage reduction of LDL-cholesterol from baseline. Number recruited was 49 to IG (women:79.6%; mean-age:60.6 ± 8.7years) and 52 to CG (women:73.1%; mean-age:61.7 ± 9.8years). Mean atorvastatin dose per day was 8.6 mg (SD = 4 mg) and 17.6 mg (SD = 8.4 mg) in IG and CG, respectively. Composite of myalgia and myositis at 24 weeks was 79.6% in IG and 69.2% in CG (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 0.7-4.3; p = 0.234). IG failed to show noninferiority for mean LDL-cholesterol (difference:0.31 mmol/L; upper limit 97.5% CI:0.61 mmol/L; p for noninferiority = 0.989) and for mean percentage reduction of LDL-cholesterol from baseline (difference:3.13%; upper limit 97.5% CI:15.5%; p for noninferiority = 0.718). At 24 weeks, mean creatine kinase and discomfort due to muscle symptoms (assessed with Visual Analogue Scale) were not different between the two groups. Findings of this study do not favor every-other-day atorvastatin as an option for managing patients with muscle symptoms associated with atorvastatin therapy.

Effect of Combined Treatment with MLC601 (NeuroAiDTM) and Rehabilitation on Post-Stroke Recovery: The CHIMES and CHIMES-E Studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MLC601 has been shown in preclinical studies to enhance neurorestorative mechanisms after stroke. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to assess whether combining MLC601 and rehabilitation has an effect on improving functional outcomes after stroke. 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.

Prognostic Factors and Pattern of Long-Term Recovery with MLC601 (NeuroAiD™) in the Chinese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke Recovery - Extension Study.

BACKGROUND: The Chinese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke recovery - Extension (CHIMES-E) study is among the few acute stroke trials with long-term outcome data. We aimed to evaluate the recovery pattern and the influence of prognostic factors on treatment effect of MLC601 over 2 years. METHODS: The CHIMES-E study evaluated the 2 years outcome of subjects aged ≥18 years with acute ischemic stroke, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score 6-14, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score ≤1 included in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MLC601 for 3 months. Standard stroke care and rehabilitation were allowed during follow-up with mRS score being assessed in-person at month (M) 3 and by telephone at M1, M6, M12, M18 and M24. RESULTS: Data from 880 subjects were analyzed. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between treatment groups. The proportion of subjects with mRS score 0-1 increased over time in favor of MLC601 most notably from M3 to M6, thereafter remaining stable up to M24, while the proportion deteriorating to mRS score ≥2 remained low at all time points. Older age (p < 0.01), female sex (p = 0.06), higher baseline NIHSS score (p < 0.01) and longer onset to treatment time (OTT; p < 0.01) were found to be predictors of poorer outcome at M3. Greater treatment effect, with more subjects improving on MLC601 than placebo, was seen among subjects with 2 or more prognostic factors (OR 1.65 at M3, 1.78 at M6, 1.90 at M12, 1.65 at M18, 1.39 at M24), especially in subjects with more severe stroke or longer OTT. CONCLUSIONS: The sustained benefits of MLC601 over 2 years were due to more subjects improving to functional independence at M6 and beyond compared to placebo. Selection of subjects with poorer prognosis, particularly those with more severe NIHSS score and longer OTT delay, as well as a long follow-up period, may improve the power of future trials investigating the treatment effect of neuroprotective or neurorestorative therapies.

CHInese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke Recovery - Extension Study (CHIMES-E): A Multicenter Study of Long-Term Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The CHInese Medicine NeuroAiD Efficacy on Stroke recovery (CHIMES) study was an international randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of MLC601 (NeuroAiD) in subjects with cerebral infarction of intermediate severity within 72 h. CHIMES-E (Extension) aimed at evaluating the effects of the initial 3-month treatment with MLC601 on long-term outcome for up to 2 years. METHODS: All subjects randomized in CHIMES were eligible for CHIMES-E. Inclusion criteria for CHIMES were age ≥18, baseline National Institute of Health Stroke Scale of 6-14, and pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ≤1. Initial CHIMES treatment allocation blinding was maintained, although no further study treatment was provided in CHIMES-E. Subjects received standard care and rehabilitation as prescribed by the treating physician. mRS, Barthel Index (BI), and occurrence of medical events were ascertained at months 6, 12, 18, and 24. The primary outcome was mRS at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were mRS and BI at other time points. RESULTS: CHIMES-E included 880 subjects (mean age 61.8 ± 11.3; 36% women). Adjusted OR for mRS ordinal analysis was 1.08 (95% CI 0.85-1.37, p = 0.543) and mRS dichotomy ≤1 was 1.29 (95% CI 0.96-1.74, p = 0.093) at 24 months. However, the treatment effect was significantly in favor of MLC601 for mRS dichotomy ≤1 at 6 months (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11-2.01, p = 0.008), 12 months (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05-1.90, p = 0.023), and 18 months (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01-1.83, p = 0.045), and for BI dichotomy ≥95 at 6 months (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14-2.10, p = 0.005) but not at other time points. Subgroup analyses showed no treatment heterogeneity. Rates of death and occurrence of vascular and other medical events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: While the benefits of a 3-month treatment with MLC601 did not reach statistical significance for the primary endpoint at 2 years, the odds of functional independence defined as mRS ≤1 was significantly increased at 6 months and persisted up to 18 months after a stroke.