Updated September 27, 2021
We found no new studies that warranted any grade changes. Our conclusion remains unchanged.
Updated October 15, 2025
As of October 15, 2025, we found no new information to warrant any grade changes.
Updated July 24, 2023
As of July 2023 we found no new information that would warrant any TOE grade changes
Key Information
Click on any letter grade below for more info:
Preclinical Trials Grade:
U
Published: Aug 2013
Propofol has mechanisms of action that may be relevant in treating ALS, although the short action of the drug makes it unlikely that a single infusion could influence ALS pathophysiology in a meaningful way. On ALS.net, six patients with ALS reported wide-ranging subjective benefits coincident with propofol use. Unfortunately, none of these benefits has been verified on validated ALS outcome measures. Only one of 235 patients with confirmed ALS who received propofol for PEG at an ALS center, or in the PRO-ACT database, or in a stem cell trial, improved objectively. The improvements in this patient were much slower to begin, and longer in duration, compared to those reported by the cohort on ALS.net, suggesting that they were more likely due to other longer-acting medications the patient received (such as immunosuppression), the stem cell treatment, or an unusual reversible form of ALS (27–30). While we cannot conclusively rule out a very brief benefit from propofol in rare patients with ALS, the risks and costs involved do not appear to justify its use. We strongly discourage the off label use of propofol in ALS patients at this time. Patients with ALS who are going to have propofol on label for a procedure or surgery may wish to have their ALS neurologist measure an ALSFRS-R and FVC before and in the first few days after propofol exposure and to send these results to ALSUntangled for a possible follow-up review.
Grade A: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in humans
Grade B: Shown in a peer-reviewed publication to act on a relevant mechanism in pre-clinical model(s)
Grade C: Theoretically and plausibly acts on an ALS-relevant mechanism in humans
Grade D: Acts on a biological mechanism but it is not clear that this mechanism is relevant in ALS
Grade F: Implausible; would violate known principles or laws of biology
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: Two or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in well-designed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade B: One peer-reviewed publication reporting benefits in a well-designed study.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publication(s) reporting benefits in flawed studies.
Animal studies are assumed to be ‘well designed’ when they follow published guidelines. When they deviate from these they are considered ‘flawed’.
Grade D: One or more non-peer reviewed studies reporting benefits (published on a website or in an abstract)
Grade F: The only studies available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade B: More than one unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade C: One unpublished report of benefit with validated diagnosis and benefits
Grade D: Subjective report(s) of benefit without validated diagnoses and/or benefits
Grade F: The only reports available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Two or more peer-reviewed publications describing benefits in well-designed randomized, blinded placebo-controlled phase III trials
Grade C: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a well-designed randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled phase I or II trial
Grade D: One or more peer-reviewed publications reporting benefits in a flawed trial.
Flawed trials means those in which there are identifiable problems with patient selection, randomization, blinding, controls or follow-up. These have ‘high or unclear risk of bias’ according to published criteria. Well-designed trials are those that have ‘low risk of bias’.
Grade F: The only trials available show no benefit
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Grade A: No exposed patients appear to have experienced harms
Grade B: More than 0% but less than 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade B (oral): More than 0% but less than10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D (intravenous): More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade C: At least 10% of exposed patients experienced harms (no hospitalizations or deaths)
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade D: More than 0% but less than 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalizations
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade F: At least 5% of exposed patients experienced death or hospitalization
Grade U: No useful information was found for this category
Listen to the Podcast
Listen on Spreaker
