ArticleNeurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics2026
Huoling Shengji granule in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, riluzole-controlled trial.
Article in Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, no curative therapies exist for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Huoling Shengji granules (HLSJ), a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), compared to the standard treatment riluzole. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled Phase II clinical trial was conducted across 11 centers in China. A total of 140 ALS patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either HLSJ or riluzole for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint, analyzed in the full analysis set (FAS), was the change in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to Week 48. Safety profiles were comparable between groups, with no significant difference in adverse events (80.28% vs. 80.56%, P = 0.9671). Analysis using the pre-specified Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method showed a numerical advantage for HLSJ (1.07 points) but lacked statistical superiority. However, a more scientific analysis using the Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM), recommended for progressive diseases, indicated that HLSJ was significantly superior to riluzole in slowing ALSFRS-R score decline (Least Squares Mean Difference [LSMD]: 2.29 points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 4.06; P = 0.0114). While the LOCF model showed no statistical difference, the MMRM analysis confirmed that HLSJ demonstrated significant efficacy superior to riluzole with a favorable safety profile. These findings provide a critical basis for conducting pivotal Phase III confirmatory trials of HLSJ for ALS treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.