Data Management And Sharing System of China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases
Safety and ef cacy of Edaravone Dexborneol versus edaravone for patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, multiple-dose, active-controlled clinical trial
First author：Jie Xu,Yilong Wang
Corresponding author：Xingquan Zhao,Yongjun Wang
essential_information
- Person in charge：Jie Xu,Yilong Wang
- Data Sources： OTHERS
- Number of papers：OTHERS20190227
- Published time：2019-02-25
2019-02-25
Published articles
Journal：stroke and vascular neurology
Publication type: Original Contributions
IF(IF): 4.081
PMID: e000221 Link To Pubmed Full text Download
Background And Purpose
Edaravone Dexborneol is a novel neuroprotective agent that comprised edaravone and (+)-borneol, a food additive with an anti-inflammatory effect in animal ischaemic stroke models. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of Edaravone Dexborneol compared with edaravone in treating patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS).
Method
In this multicentre, randomised, double- blind, multiple-dose, active-controlled, phase II clinical trial, patients with AIS within 48 hours after stroke onset were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to low-dose (12.5 mg), medium-dose (37.5 mg) or high-dose (62.5 mg) Edaravone Dexborneol groups, and an active control group with edaravone (30 mg) by 30 min intravenous infusion every 12 hours, for 14 consecutive days. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of modified Rankin Scale (mRS)score ≤1 at 90 days and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score change from baseline to 14 days after randomisation. The safety outcome included any adverse event during 90 days after treatment.
Conclusion
Compared with edaravone alone, Edaravone Dexborneol was safe and well tolerated at all doses, although no significant improvement in functional outcomes was observed at 90days.
Main results
Of 385 patients included in the efficacy analysis, 94 were randomised to low-dose group, 97 to medium-dose group, 98 to high-dose group and 96 to the control group. No significant difference was observed among the four groups on mRS score (mRS ≤1, p=0.4054) at 90 days or NIHSS score change at 14 days (p=0.6799). However, a numerically higher percentage of patients with mRS score ≤1 at 90 days in the medium-dose (69.39%) and high-dose (65.63%) groups was observed than in the control group (60.64%). No significant difference in severe adverse events was found among the four groups (p=0.3815).