The predominant tool used to predict outcomes after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), in association with the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS). These measures have evolved based on analyses of large amounts of longitudinal neurological recovery data published in numerous separate studies. This article reviews and synthesizes published data on neurological recovery from multiple sources, only utilizing data in which the sacral sparing definition was applied for determination of completeness. Conversion from a complete to incomplete injury is more common in tetraplegia than paraplegia. The majority of AIS conversion and motor recovery occurs within the first 6–9 months, with the most rapid rate of motor recovery occurring in the first three months after injury. Motor score changes, as well as recovery of motor levels, are described with the initial strength of muscles as well as the levels of the motor zone of partial preservation influencing the prognosis. Total motor recovery is greater for patients with initial AIS B than AIS A, and greater after initial AIS C than with motor complete injuries. Older age has a negative impact on neurological and functional recovery after SCI; however, the specific age (whether >50 or >65 years) and underlying reasons for this impact are unclear. Penetrating injury is more likely to lead to a classification of a neurological complete injury compared with blunt trauma and reduces the likelihood of AIS conversion at one year. There are insufficient data to support gender having a major effect on neurological recovery after SCI.

Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) leads to permanent impairment of arm and hand functions. Here we conducted a prospective, single-arm, multicenter, open-label, non-significant risk trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ARC^EX Therapy to improve arm and hand functions in people with chronic SCI. ARC^EX Therapy involves the delivery of externally applied electrical stimulation over the cervical spinal cord during structured rehabilitation. The primary endpoints were safety and efficacy as measured by whether the majority of participants exhibited significant improvement in both strength and functional performance in response to ARC^EX Therapy compared to the end of an equivalent period of rehabilitation alone. Sixty participants completed the protocol. No serious adverse events related to ARC^EX Therapy were reported, and the primary effectiveness endpoint was met. Seventy-two percent of participants demonstrated improvements greater than the minimally important difference criteria for both strength and functional domains. Secondary endpoint analysis revealed significant improvements in fingertip pinch force, hand prehension and strength, upper extremity motor and sensory abilities and self-reported increases in quality of life. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of ARC^EX Therapy to improve hand and arm functions in people living with cervical SCI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04697472.

Riluzole is a sodium-glutamate antagonist that attenuates neurodegeneration in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). It has shown favorable results in promoting recovery in pre-clinical models of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) and in early phase clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of riluzole in acute cervical tSCI. An international, multi-center, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, adaptive, Phase III trial (NCT01597518) was undertaken. Patients with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A-C, cervical (C4-C8) tSCI, and <12 h from injury were randomized to receive either riluzole, at an oral dose of 100 mg twice per day (BID) for the first 24 h followed by 50 mg BID for the following 13 days, or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was change in Upper Extremity Motor (UEM) scores at 180 days. The primary efficacy analyses were conducted on an intention to treat (ITT) and completed cases (CC) basis. The study was powered at a planned enrolment of 351 patients. The trial began in October 2013 and was halted by the sponsor on May 2020 (and terminated in April 2021) in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic. One hundred ninety-three patients (54.9% of the pre-planned enrolment) were randomized with a follow-up rate of 82.7% at 180 days. At 180 days, in the CC population the riluzole-treated patients compared with placebo had a mean gain of 1.76 UEM scores (95% confidence interval: -2.54-6.06) and 2.86 total motor scores (CI: -6.79-12.52). No drug-related serious adverse events were associated with the use of riluzole. Additional pre-planned sensitivity analyses revealed that in the AIS C population, riluzole was associated with significant improvement in total motor scores (estimate: standard error [SE] 8.0; CI 1.5-14.4) and upper extremity motor scores (SE 13.8; CI 3.1-24.5) at 6 months. AIS B patients had higher reported independence, measured by the Spinal Cord Independence Measure score (45.3 vs. 27.3; d: 18.0 CI: -1.7-38.0) and change in mental health scores, measured by the Short Form 36 mental health domain (2.01 vs. -11.58; d: 13.2 CI: 1.2-24.8) at 180 days. AIS A patients who received riluzole had a higher average gain in neurological levels at 6 months compared with placebo (mean 0.50 levels gained vs. 0.12 in placebo; d: 0.38, CI: -0.2-0.9). The primary analysis did not achieve the predetermined end-point of efficacy for riluzole, likely related to insufficient power. However, on pre-planned secondary analyses, all subgroups of cervical SCI subjects (AIS grades A, B and C) treated with riluzole showed significant gains in functional recovery. The results of this trial may warrant further investigation to extend these findings. Moreover, guideline development groups may wish to assess the possible clinical relevance of the secondary outcome analyses, in light of the fact that SCI is an uncommon orphan disorder without an accepted neuroprotective treatment.

While various approaches have been proposed in clinical trials aimed at improving motor function after spinal cord injury in humans, there is still limited information regarding the scope, methodological quality, and evidence associated with single-intervention and multi-intervention approaches. A systematic review performed using the PubMed search engine and the key words “spinal cord injury motor recovery” identified 1973 records, of which 39 were selected (18 from the search records and 21 from reference list inspection). Study phase ( clinicaltrials.org criteria) and methodological quality (Cochrane criteria) were assessed. Studies included proposed a broad range of single-intervention (encompassing cell therapies, pharmacology, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation) (encompassing cell therapies, pharmacology, electrical stimulation, rehabilitation) and multi-intervention approaches (that combined more than one strategy). The highest evidence level was for Phase III studies supporting the role of multi-intervention approaches that contained a rehabilitation component. Quality appraisal revealed that the percentage of selected studies classified with high risk of bias by Cochrane criteria was as follows: random sequence generation = 64%; allocation concealment = 77%; blinding of participants and personnel = 69%; blinding of outcome assessment = 64%; attrition = 44%; selective reporting = 44%. The current literature contains a high proportion of studies with a limited ability to measure efficacy in a valid manner because of low methodological strength in all items of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Recommendations to decrease bias are discussed and include increased methodological rigor in the study design and recruitment of study participants, and the use of electrophysiological and imaging measures that can assess functional integrity of the spinal cord (and may be sufficiently sensitive to detect changes that occur in response to therapeutic interventions).