Neurotrauma and Repair Research: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and its Treatments

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects a growing portion of the population and continues to take national spotlight with advances in imaging technology and understanding of long-term effects. However, there is large variance in TBI treatment protocols due to injury variability and lack of both mechanistic understanding and strong treatment recommendations. Recent practice suggests three disparate treatment approaches, all which aim at promoting neuroprotection after TBI, show promise: immediate hypothermia, hyperbaric oxygen, and progesterone supplementation. The research is controversial at times, yet there are abundant opportunities to develop the technology behind hypothermia and hyperbaric oxygen treatments which would surely aid in aligning the current data. Additionally, while progesterone has already been packaged in nanoparticle form it may benefit from continued formulation and administration research. The treatments and the avenues for improvement are reviewed in the present paper

www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms Traumatic Brain Injury Pathophysiology and Treatments: Early, Intermediate, and Late Phases Post-Injury

Abstract: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) affects a large proportion and extensive array of individuals in the population. While precise pathological mechanisms are lacking, the growing base of knowledge concerning TBI has put increased emphasis on its understanding and treatment. Most treatments of TBI are aimed at ameliorating secondary insults arising from the injury; these insults can be characterized with respect to time post-injury, including early, intermediate, and late pathological changes. Early pathological responses are due to energy depletion and cell death secondary to excitotoxicity, the intermediate phase is characterized by neuroinflammation and the late stage by increased susceptibility to seizures and epilepsy. Current treatments of TBI have been tailored to these distinct pathological stages with some overlap. Many prophylactic, pharmacologic, and surgical treatments are used post-TBI to halt the progression of these pathologic reactions. In the present review, we discuss the mechanisms of the pathological hallmarks of TBI and both current and novel treatments which target the respective pathways

Outcome measures in clinical trials of treatments for acute severe haemorrhage

BACKGROUND: Acute severe haemorrhage is a common complication of injury, childbirth, surgery, gastrointestinal pathologies and other medical conditions. Bleeding is a major cause of death, but patients also die from non-bleeding causes, the frequency of which varies by the site of haemorrhage and between populations. Because patients can bleed to death within hours, established interventions inevitably take priority over randomisation into a trial. These circumstances raise challenges in selecting appropriate outcome measures for clinical trials of haemostatic interventions. MAIN BODY: We use data from three large randomised controlled trials in acute severe haemorrhage (CRASH-2, WOMAN and HALT-IT) to explore the strengths and limitations of outcome measures commonly used in trials of haemostatic treatments, including all-cause and cause-specific mortality, blood transfusion and surgical interventions. Many deaths following acute severe haemorrhage are due to patient comorbidities or complications rather than bleeding. If non-bleeding deaths are unaffected by a haemostatic intervention, even large trials will have low power to detect an effect on all-cause mortality. Due to the dilution from deaths unaffected or reduced by the trial treatment, all-cause mortality can also obscure important harmful effects. Additionally, because the relative contributions of different causes of death vary within and between patient populations, all-cause mortality is not generalisable. Different causes of death occur at different time intervals from bleeding onset, with bleeding deaths generally occurring early. Time-specific mortality can therefore be used as a proxy for cause in un-blinded trials where bias is a concern or in situations where cause of death cannot be assessed. Urgent treatment is critical, and so post-randomisation blood transfusion and surgery are often planned before or at the time of randomisation and therefore cannot be influenced by the trial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality has low power, lacks generalisability and can obscure harmful effects. Cause-specific mortality, such as death due to bleeding or thrombosis, avoids these drawbacks. In certain scenarios, time-specific mortality can be used as a proxy for cause-specific mortality. Blood transfusion and surgical procedures have limited utility as outcome measures in trials of haemostatic treatments