Cited by 509Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

A Clinical Trial of Progesterone for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Open access
Skolnick, Brett E., Maas, Andrew I., Narayan, Raj K., van der Hoop, Roland Gerritsen, MacAllister, Thomas, Ward, John D., Nelson, Neta R., Stocchetti, Nino·2014·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Progesterone has been associated with robust positive effects in animal models of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and with clinical benefits in two phase 2 randomized, controlled trials. We investigated the efficacy and safety of progesterone in a large, prospective, phase 3 randomized clinical trial. METHODS: We conducted a multinational placebo-controlled trial, in which 1195 patients, 16 to 70 years of age, with severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale score, ≤8 [on a scale of 3 to 15, with lower scores indicating a reduced level of consciousness] and at least one reactive pupil) were randomly assigned to receive progesterone or placebo. Dosing began within 8 hours after injury and continued for 120 hours. The primary efficacy end point was the Glasgow Outcome Scale score at 6 months after the injury. RESULTS: Proportional-odds analysis with covariate adjustment showed no treatment effect of progesterone as compared with placebo (odds ratio, 0.96; confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.18). The proportion of patients with a favorable outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Scale (good recovery or moderate disability) was 50.4% with progesterone, as compared with 50.5% with placebo. Mortality was similar in the two groups. No relevant safety differences were noted between progesterone and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Primary and secondary efficacy analyses showed no clinical benefit of progesterone in patients with severe TBI. These data stand in contrast to the robust preclinical data and results of early single-center trials that provided the impetus to initiate phase 3 trials. (Funded by BHR Pharma; SYNAPSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01143064.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1411090

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Saatman KE, Duhaime AC, Bullock R, Maas AI, Valadka A, Manley GT. Classifi- cation of traumatic brain injury for tar- geted therapies. J Neurotrauma 2008;25: 719-38.
  2. Drew PD, Chavis JA. Female sex ste- roids: effects upon microglial cell activa- tion. J Neuroimmunol 2000;111:77-85.
  3. Liu A, Margaill I, Zhang S, et al. Pro- gesterone receptors: a key for neuropro- tection in experimental stroke. Endocri- nology 2012;153:3747-57.
  4. Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Guidelines for the management of severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2007;24:Suppl 1:S1-S106. [Erratum, J Neu- rotrauma 2008;25:276-8.]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skolnick, B. E., Maas, A. I., Narayan, R. K., van der Hoop, R. G., MacAllister, T., Ward, J. D., Nelson, N. R., & Stocchetti, N.
Affiliations
  • Hofstra University (US)
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • University of Milan (IT)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2014-12-25
Volume
371
Issue
26
Pages
2467-2476
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2046037876
Cited by
505
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 1
FWCI
37.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (publishedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
progesterone, severe traumatic brain injury, Glasgow Outcome Scale, treatment efficacy, drug safety, neuroprotection
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Brain Injuries, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Middle Aged, Progesterone, Glasgow Coma Scale, Odds Ratio, Treatment Failure, Glasgow Outcome Scale, Young Adult, Intention to Treat Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review