Talk:NeuroAiD

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Danqi Jiaonang → Neuroaid — Relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Danqi Jiaonang is a traditional chinese medecine which is currently used in China. Neuroaid is a stroke treatment which takes its origines in Danqi Jiaonang but which is more than simply Danqi Jiaonang.Furthermore All clinical trials stated in the page were made on neuroaid and not on Danqi Jiaonang. Argenlieu (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Rubberstamp endorse since this has been unopposed and open for more than 2 weeks. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:MED

FYI, I have posted a query about this article on the WP:MED Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The article needs secondary sources like doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2012.02.011. I don't have access to it though. Biosthmors (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do. Since text for neuroaid is not long I will post it here under fair use conditions so we can all see it. We should eliminate it as soon as possible. Great job finding it.--Garrondo (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

From doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2012.02.011: NeuroAiD™ (MLC601 and MLC901), a traditional Chinese medicine has been used in China in patients after stroke as drugs to facilitate recovery after stroke since 2001. These agents combine nine herbal and five animal components. In vitro and in vivo results showed that NeuroAiD made cells more resistant against glutamate aggression, increased neurite outgrowth and connectivity and reduced infarct volume [41]. In a rodent model with focal ischemia an improved survival, brain protection and decreased functional deficits were demonstrated. MLC901 also prevented neuronal death in an in vitro model and induced neurogenesis in rodent and human cells [41]. Chen et al. analyzed the improvement of neurological recovery after stroke 2009 in clinical trials [42]. A recent study showed that MLC901 can also improve functional recovery of rats after global ischemia, because it was found to have an important role in neuroprotection [3]. Overall, NeuroAID, as it has already been effective in a cohort of Chinese patients with stroke, seems to represent an interesting agent in stroke treatment.

Refs:

• 3-H. Quintard et al. MLC901, a Traditional Chinese Medicine protects the brain against global ischemia. Neuropharmacology, 61 (2011), pp. 622–631
• 41-C. Heurteaux et al.Neuroprotective and neuroproliferative activities of NeuroAid (MLC601, MLC901), a Chinese medicine, in vitro and in vivo. Neuropharmacology, 58 (2010), pp. 987–1001
• 42-C. Chen et al.Danqi Piantang Jiaonang (DJ), a traditional Chinese medicine, in poststroke recovery.Stroke, 40 (2009), pp. 859–863

Reverted

I reverted a recent edit, which appeared promotional, as mentioned here. Biosthmors (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alzheimers

I've removed this sentence:

It has also shown effectiveness as a complementary treatment for other brain injuries and Alzheimer's disease.

I have removed this sentence because the source is about a clinical trial that they plan to do sometime in the future. It is not a clinical trial that already happened. There is no data here and no conclusion that it is actually effective. (Also, that'd be a Adjuvant therapy, not necessarily a Complementary therapy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description

I modified the short description (diff) so that it now reads: "Supposed post-stroke ameliorative supplement". By "supposed" (pronunciation: \ sə-​ˈpō-​zəd \), I mean "erroneously imputed or ascribed".. If that meaning does not seem clear, please edit for clarity. (It's clear to me, but not everyone is a word geek . ;^) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 17:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Request to specify formulation in the lead

Disclosure: I am an employee of Moleac, the company that markets NeuroAiD (MLC601/MLC901). I therefore have a conflict of interest and am not editing the article directly. I am proposing this source-backed change on the Talk page for review by independent editors, and I am not requesting removal of well-sourced negative material.

* Text to be changed (in the lead): "The drug shows no significant benefit in improving outcomes at 3 months in patients with acute ischemic stroke."

* Proposed replacement: "MLC601 shows no significant benefit in improving outcomes at 3 months in patients with acute ischemic stroke."

* Reason: The meta analysis behind this statement tested the MLC601 formulation specifically . The article already explains that there were two formulations and that MLC601 was discontinued in 2018 and replaced by MLC901, so attributing the finding to "the drug" generically is imprecise. Naming the formulation makes the sentence accurate and consistent with the rest of the article. I am not requesting removal of the meta analysis result or any change to its conclusion. PaxAleatoire (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Have there been any studies assessing the efficacy of the MLC901 formulation? Spencer^T•C 19:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow-up question! Rather than propose wording, I have linked the studies assessing the efficacy and safety of MLC901 with full citations (and description of the results of these studies), so you can review the sources directly and judge for yourself what belongs in the article.

=== Ischemic stroke ===

MLC901 has been investigated for recovery following ischemic stroke. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical studies concluded that MLC601/MLC901 was associated with improved functional independence and motor recovery after ischemic stroke when used in addition to standard care and rehabilitation A 2024 systematic review by the Asian Stroke Advisory Panel (ASAP) assigned a Level of Evidence B-R under the American Stroke Association evidence grading scheme. A prospective observational study also identified MLC901 use as an independent predictor of neurological and functional recovery, particularly in patients with more severe stroke.

=== Traumatic brain injury ===

MLC901 has been investigated for cognitive functioning following traumatic brain injury (TBI). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial reported greater improvements in measures of complex attention and executive functioning with MLC901 than with placebo in adults with mild-to-moderate TBI. Based on these findings, the 2023 INCOG 2.0 Guidelines for Cognitive Rehabilitation Following TBI state that MLC901 may enhance complex attention in individuals with mild-to-moderate TBI and assign Level A evidence to this recommendation. A 2026 systematic review similarly concluded that MLC901 improved complex attention (Level of Evidence 1). A confirmatory study was carried out with SAMURAI. While the study did not show significant cognitive findings on computerized testing, significant improvements across clinical measures of post-concussion symptoms, quality of life, anxiety and depression were observed and sustained up to nine months, alongside a favorable safety profile consistent with the wider MLC901 literature.

References

PaxAleatoire (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The 2026 systematic review you cited states that the results are for "MLC601/MLC901", and the other studies are individual studies (see WP:MEDRS). Without additional reviews, it's difficult to ascertain whether the articles above represent an appropriate review of the literature related to this drug. For example, another study assessing its use in dementia (granted, not an indication that you discuss above) from Chen et al 2021 found "no significant cognitive benefit from MLC901 in the study population". I will leave this for another editor to review. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Dear Spencer,

Thank you for your comments and for highlighting the WP:MEDRS considerations.

Regarding the "MLC601/MLC901" terminology in the 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis, the review describes MLC901 as the simplified formulation of MLC601 and notes that the two formulations have been shown to be equivalent in several pharmacological studies. This also appears consistent with the current article text, which states that MLC601 has been replaced by MLC901 and describes MLC901 as its simplified formulation. Against this background, we considered the review relevant to MLC901, while retaining the "MLC601/MLC901" terminology when reporting the findings of the meta-analysis, as in the source itself.

We also take your point regarding the importance of considering the broader literature rather than relying on individual studies. We noted that the article already includes the 2016 systematic review reporting no significant benefit of MLC601 in improving outcomes at three months after acute ischemic stroke. The review-level evidence now also includes the 2024 systematic review by the Asian Stroke Advisory Panel, which assigned MLC601/MLC901 a Level of Evidence B-R under the American Stroke Association evidence grading scheme, as well as the 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis discussed above.

Taking these sources into account, we would like to suggest the following wording for consideration:

MLC901 has been investigated for recovery following ischemic stroke. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical studies concluded that MLC601/MLC901 was associated with improved functional independence and motor recovery after ischemic stroke when used in addition to standard care and rehabilitation.<ref name="Venketasubramanian2026" /> A 2024 systematic review by the Asian Stroke Advisory Panel (ASAP) assigned a Level of Evidence B-R under the American Stroke Association evidence grading scheme.<ref name="Lee2024" />

We appreciate the example of Chen et al. 2021 and understand the broader point it illustrates regarding the need to consider the wider body of evidence.

We hope these clarifications may be helpful in considering the evidence. Thank you again for taking the time to review this and for your guidance. PaxAleatoire (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

References

PaxAleatoire (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I would appreciate your independent review of a proposed update to the NeuroAiD article, particularly from a WP:MEDRS perspective.

A previous editor raised a question regarding whether the available sources adequately represent the literature, noting that the 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis reports its findings for MLC601/MLC901 and that some of the other references initially discussed were individual studies.

In response, we clarified that the proposed stroke-related content would rely on review-level evidence rather than individual studies.

The cited 2026 review also describes MLC901 as the simplified formulation of MLC601 and notes their pharmacological equivalence, which was the basis for considering this review relevant while retaining the "MLC601/MLC901" terminology used by the source itself.

The proposed wording is:

MLC901 has been investigated for recovery following ischemic stroke. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical studies concluded that MLC601/MLC901 was associated with improved functional independence and motor recovery after ischemic stroke when used in addition to standard care and rehabilitation. A 2024 systematic review by the Asian Stroke Advisory Panel (ASAP) assigned a Level of Evidence B-R under the American Stroke Association evidence grading scheme.

We would be grateful for your view on whether these review-level sources and the proposed wording would be appropriate under WP:MEDRS, including whether the MLC601/MLC901 terminology is sufficiently clear. PaxAleatoire (talk) 06:04, 03 September 2026 (UTC)