METHODS: We performed a systematic-search-and-review of treatments that have been investigated as recovery-enhancing or recovery-promoting therapies in adult patients with stroke. The treatment must have received registration or market authorization in any country regardless of primary indication. Outcomes included in the review were neurological impairments and functional/disability assessments. "The best available studies" based on study design, study size, and/or date of publication were selected and graded for level of evidence (LOE) by consensus.

RESULTS: Our systematic search yielded 7,801 citations, and we reviewed 665 full-text papers. Fifty-eight publications were selected as "the best studies" across 25 pharmacological classes: 31 on ischemic stroke, 21 on ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, 4 on intracerebral hemorrhage, and 2 on subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Twenty-six were systematic reviews/meta-analyses, 29 were randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and three were cohort studies. Only nimodipine for SAH had LOE A of benefit (systematic review and network meta-analysis). Many studies, some of which showed treatment effects, were assessed as LOE C-LD, mainly due to small sample sizes or poor quality. Seven interventions had LOE B-R (systematic review/meta-analysis or RCT) of treatment effects.

CONCLUSION: Only one commercially available treatment has LOE A for routine use in stroke. Further studies of putative neuroprotective drugs as adjunctive treatment to revascularization procedures and more confirmatory trials on recovery-promoting therapies will enhance the certainty of their benefit. The decision on their use must be guided by the clinical profile, neurological impairments, and target outcomes based on the available evidence.

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.