Efficacy and safety of dexanabinol in severe traumatic brain injury: results of a phase III randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial

被引:207
作者
Maas, AIR [1 ]
Murray, G
Henney, H
Kassem, N
Legrand, V
Mangelus, M
Muizelaar, JP
Stocchetti, N
Knoller, N
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Dept Neurosurg, NL-3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Edinburgh, Sch Med, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
[3] Pharmos Corp, Iselin, NJ USA
[4] Quintiles, Paris, France
[5] Calif State Univ Sacramento, Dept Neurosurg, Sacramento, CA 95819 USA
[6] Univ Milan, Neurosci ICU, Osped Policlin IRCCS, Milan, Italy
[7] Chaim Sheba Med Ctr, Dept Neurosurg, IL-52621 Tel Hashomer, Israel
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70253-2
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Traumatic brain injury is a major cause of death and disability. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of dexanabinol, a synthetic cannabinoid analogue devoid of psychotropic activity, in severe traumatic brain injury. Methods 861 patients with severe traumatic brain injury admitted to 86 specialist centres from 15 countries were included in a multi-centre, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Patients were randomised to receive a single intravenous 150 mg dose of dexanabinol or placebo within 6 h of injury. The primary outcome was the extended Glasgow outcome scale assessed at 6 months, with the point of dichotomisation into unfavourable versus favourable outcome differentiated by baseline prognostic risk. Prespecified subgroup analyses were defined by injury severity, recruitment rate, and time to dosing. Secondary analysis included control of intracranial pressure and quality of life. Analysis were prespecified in the protocol and the statistical analysis plan. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00129857. Findings 846 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. The extended Glasgow outcome scale at 6 months did not differ between groups; 215 (50%) patients in the dexanabinol group and 214 (51%) patients in the placebo group had an unfavourable outcome (odds ratio for a favourable response 1.04; 95% CI 0.79-1.36). Improvements in the control of intracranial pressure or quality of life were not recorded and subgroup analysis showed no indication of differential treatment effects. Dexanabinol was not associated with hepatic, renal, or cardiac toxic effects. Interpretation Dexanabinol is safe, but is not efficacious in the treatment of traumatic brain injury.
引用
收藏
页码:38 / 45
页数:8
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [11] NEUROPROTECTIVE AND ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITIES OF HU-211, A NOVEL NMDA RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST
    ESHHAR, N
    STRIEM, S
    KOHEN, R
    TIROSH, O
    BIEGON, A
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY, 1995, 283 (1-3) : 19 - 29
  • [12] ADVERSE REACTIONS TO INTRAVENOUS ANESTHETIC INDUCTION-AGENTS
    EVANS, JM
    KEOGH, JAM
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1977, 2 (6089) : 735 - 736
  • [13] NONPSYCHOTROPIC CANNABINOID ACTS AS A FUNCTIONAL N-METHYL-D-ASPARTATE RECEPTOR BLOCKER
    FEIGENBAUM, JJ
    BERGMANN, F
    RICHMOND, SA
    MECHOULAM, R
    NADLER, V
    KLOOG, Y
    SOKOLOVSKY, M
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1989, 86 (23) : 9584 - 9587
  • [14] High-girth graphs avoiding a minor are nearly bipartite
    Galluccio, A
    Goddyn, LA
    Hell, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMBINATORIAL THEORY SERIES B, 2001, 83 (01) : 1 - 14
  • [15] Traumatic brain injury
    Ghajar, J
    [J]. LANCET, 2000, 356 (9233) : 923 - 929
  • [16] CEREBRAL PROTECTION .23.
    HOFF, JT
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1986, 65 (05) : 579 - 591
  • [17] Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: Development and validation of a prognostic score based on admission characteristics
    Hukkelhoven, CWPM
    Steyerberg, EW
    Habbema, JDF
    Farace, E
    Marmarou, A
    Murray, GD
    Marshall, LF
    Maas, AIR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA, 2005, 22 (10) : 1025 - 1039
  • [18] Dexanabinol (HU-211) in the treatment of severe closed head injury: A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial
    Knoller, N
    Levi, L
    Shoshan, I
    Reichenthal, E
    Razon, N
    Rappaport, ZH
    Biegon, A
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2002, 30 (03) : 548 - 554
  • [19] Why have recent trials of neuroprotective agents in head injury failed to show convincing efficacy? A pragmatic analysis and theoretical considerations
    Maas, AIR
    Steyerberg, EW
    Murray, GD
    Bullock, R
    Baethmann, A
    Marshall, LF
    Teasdale, GM
    [J]. NEUROSURGERY, 1999, 44 (06) : 1286 - 1298
  • [20] Maas AIR, 2004, ACT NEUR S, V89, P113