Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 17, 2026

Constructing and Visualizing Models using Mime-based Machine-learning Framework
Published on: July 22, 2025
Prognostic factors and treatment effect in the CHIMES study
Siwaporn Chankrachang1, Jose C Navarro2, Deidre A de Silva3
1Chiang Mai University, Amphur Muang, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Insights
MLC601 improved stroke recovery outcomes in patients with multiple poor prognostic factors. Stratifying by prognosis in stroke trials enhances the evaluation of treatment efficacy for specific patient subgroups.
Area of Science:
- Neurology
- Clinical Trials
- Stroke Medicine
Background:
- Stroke trials often use a single outcome definition for heterogeneous patient prognoses.
- This approach may not be suitable for all patient subgroups.
- Evaluating treatment effects based on prognosis is crucial for personalized medicine.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the treatment effects of MLC601 in patients stratified by prognostic factors.
- To determine if prognosis influences the efficacy of MLC601 in ischemic stroke recovery.
- To inform the design of future stroke clinical trials.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of data from the Chinese Medicine Neuroaid Efficacy on Stroke Recovery (CHIMES) study.
- International, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial comparing MLC601 with placebo.
- Inclusion of 1006 ischemic stroke patients with baseline data and 3-month modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores.
Main Results:
- Predictors of poor functional outcome (mRS > 1) at 3 months included older age, higher NIH Stroke Scale score, longer time to treatment, and female sex.
- A higher number of prognostic predictors correlated with poorer outcomes in both placebo and MLC601 groups.
- MLC601 showed a statistically significant benefit in patients with 2 or more negative prognostic factors (adjusted OR = 1.60).
Conclusions:
- Age, sex, baseline NIH Stroke Scale, and time to treatment predict functional outcomes post-stroke.
- Prognostic stratification revealed a more pronounced treatment effect of MLC601 in patients with multiple risk factors.
- These findings support tailored approaches in designing future stroke clinical trials.
Background:
Stroke trials often analyze patients with heterogeneous prognoses using a single definition of outcome, which may not be applicable to all subgroups. We aimed to evaluate the treatment effects of MCL601 among patients stratified by prognosis in the Chinese Medicine Neuroaid Efficacy on Stroke Recovery (CHIMES) study.
Methods:
Analyses were performed using data from the CHIMES study, an international, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial comparing MLC601 with placebo in patients with ischemic stroke of intermediate severity in the preceding 72 hours. All subjects with baseline data and the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months were included.
Results:
Data from 1006 subjects were analyzed. The predictive variables for mRS score greater than 1 at month 3 were age older than 60 years (P < .001), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 10-14 (P < .001), stroke onset to initiation of study treatment of more than 48 hours (P < .001), and female sex (P = .026). A higher number of predictors was associated with poorer mRS score at month 3 for both placebo (P < .001) and treatment (P < .001) groups. The odds ratio (OR) for achieving a good outcome increased with the number of predictors and reached statistical significance in favor of MLC601 among patients with 2 to 4 predictors combined (unadjusted OR = 1.44, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.03; adjusted OR = 1.60, 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.34).
Conclusions:
Age, sex, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, and time to first dose are predictors of functional outcome in the CHIMES study. Stratification by prognosis showed that patients with 2 or more predictors of poorer outcome have better treatment effect with MLC601 than patients with single or no prognostic factor. These results have implications on designing future stroke trials.
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring: Affecting Factors