Amantadine Did Not Positively Impact Cognition in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multi-Site, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Despite limited evidence to support the use of amantadine to enhance cognitive function after traumatic brain injury (TBI), the clinical use for this purpose is highly prevalent and is often based on inferred belief systems. The aim of this study was to assess effect of amantadine on cognition among individuals with a history of TBI and behavioral disturbance using a parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of amantadine 100 mg twice-daily versus placebo for 60 days. Included in the study were 119 individuals with two or more neuropsychological measures greater than 1 standard deviation below normative means from a larger study of 168 individuals with chronic TBI (>6 months post-injury) and irritability. Cognitive function was measured at treatment days 0, 28, and 60 with a battery of neuropsychological tests. Composite indices were generated: General Cognitive Index (included all measures), a Learning Memory Index (learning/memory measures), and Attention/Processing Speed Index (attention and executive function measures). Repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed statistically significant between-group differences favoring the placebo group at day 28 for General Cognitive Index (p = 0.002) and Learning Memory Index (p = 0.001), but not Attention/Processing Speed Index (p = 0.25), whereas no statistically significant between-group differences were found at day 60. There were no statistically significant between-group differences on adverse events. Cognitive function in individuals with chronic TBI is not improved by amantadine 100 mg twice-daily. In the first 28 days of use, amantadine may impede cognitive processing. However, the effect size was small and mean scores for both groups were generally within expectations for persons with history of complicated mild-to-severe TBI, suggesting that changes observed across assessments may not have functional significance. The use of amantadine to enhance cognitive function is not supported by these findings

Potential Impact of Amantadine on Aggression in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To assess the effects of amantadine on anger and aggression among individuals with a chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: A cohort of 118 persons with chronic TBI (>6 months postinjury) and moderate-severe aggression selected from a larger cohort of 168 participants enrolled in a parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of amantadine 100 mg twice daily (n = 82) versus placebo (n = 86) for treatment of irritability were studied. Anger and aggression were measured at treatment days 0, 28, and 60 using observer-rated and participant-rated State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Agitation/Aggression domain (NPI-A) Most Problematic and Distress scores. Results: Participant-rated day 60 NPI-A Most Problematic (adjusted P = .0118) and NPI-A Distress (adjusted P = .0118) were statistically significant between the 2 groups, but STAXI-2 differences were not significant after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Substantial improvements were noted in both amantadine and placebo groups (70% vs 56% improving at least 3 points on day 60 Observer NPI-A; P = .11). Conclusion: Amantadine 100 mg twice daily in this population with chronic TBI appears to be beneficial in decreasing aggression from the perspective of the individual with TBI. No beneficial impact on anger was found

Reactive hyperemia index (RHI) and cognitive performance indexes are associated with histologic markers of liver disease in subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a case control study.

BACKGROUND: No study evaluated vascular health markers in subjects with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) through a combined analysis of reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry (RH-PAT) and arterial stiffness indexes. AIM OF THE STUDY: We aimed to assess whether NAFLD and its histological severity are associated with impairment of arterial stiffness and RH-PAT indexes in a mixed cohort of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Kleiner classification was used to grade NAFLD grade. Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (Aix) were used as markers of arterial stiffness, whereas endothelial function was assessed using reactive hyperemia index (RHI). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) was administered to test cognitive performance. RESULTS: 80 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD and 83 controls without fatty liver disease. NAFLD subjects showed significantly lower mean RHI, higher mean arterial stiffness indexes and lower mean MMSE score. Multivariable analysis after correction for BMI, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, sex, diabetes, age and cardiovascular disease showed that BMI, diastolic blood pressure and RHI are significantly associated to NAFLD. Simple linear regression analysis showed among non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) subjects a significant negative relationship between ballooning grade and MMSE and a significant positive association between Kleiner steatosis grade and augmentation index. CONCLUSIONS: Future research will be addressed to evaluate the relationship between inflammatory markers and arterial stiffness and endothelial function indexes in NAFLD subjects. These study will evaluate association between cardiovascular event incidence and arterial stiffness, endothelial and cognitive markers, and they will address the beneficial effects of cardiovascular drugs such as statins and ACE inhibitors on these surrogate markers in NAFLD subjects

Treating Disorders of Consciousness With Apomorphine: Protocol for a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Using Multimodal Assessments

Background: There are few available therapeutic options to promote recovery among patients with chronic disorders of consciousness (DOC). Among pharmacological treatments, apomorphine, a dopamine agonist, has exhibited promising behavioral effects and safety of use in small-sample pilot studies. The true efficacy of the drug and its neural mechanism are still unclear. Apomorphine may act through a modulation of the anterior forebrain mesocircuit, but neuroimaging and neurophysiological investigations to test this hypothesis are scarce. This clinical trial aims to (1) assess the treatment effect of subcutaneous apomorphine infusions in patients with DOC, (2) better identify the phenotype of responders to treatment, (3) evaluate tolerance and side effects in this population, and (4) examine the neural networks underlying its modulating action on consciousness.Methods/Design: This study is a prospective double-blind randomized parallel placebo-controlled trial. Forty-eight patients diagnosed with DOC will be randomized to receive a 30-day regimen of either apomorphine hydrochloride or placebo subcutaneous infusions. Patients will be monitored at baseline 30 days before initiation of therapy, during treatment and for 30 days after treatment washout, using standardized behavioral scales (Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, Nociception Coma Scale-Revised), neurophysiological measures (electroencephalography, body temperature, actigraphy) and brain imaging (magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography). Behavioral follow-up will be performed up to 2 years using structured phone interviews. Analyses will look for changes in behavioral status, circadian rhythmicity, brain metabolism, and functional connectivity at the individual level (comparing before and after treatment) and at the group level (comparing apomorphine and placebo arms, and comparing responder and non-responder groups).Discussion: This study investigates the use of apomorphine for the recovery of consciousness in the first randomized placebo-controlled double-blind trial using multimodal assessments. The results will contribute to define the role of dopamine agonists for the treatment of these challenging conditions and identify the neural correlates to their action. Results will bring objective evidence to further assess the modulation of the anterior forebrain mesocircuit by pharmacological agents, which may open new therapeutic perspectives.Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT n°2018-003144-23; Clinicaltrials.gov n°NCT03623828 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03623828)

Age-dependent white matter disruptions after military traumatic brain injury: Multivariate analysis results from ENIGMA brain injury

Mild Traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a signature wound in military personnel, and repetitive mTBI has been linked to age-related neurogenerative disorders that affect white matter (WM) in the brain. However, findings of injury to specific WM tracts have been variable and inconsistent. This may be due to the heterogeneity of mechanisms, etiology, and comorbid disorders related to mTBI. Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) is a data-driven approach that detects covarying patterns (components) within high-dimensional data. We applied NMF to diffusion imaging data from military Veterans with and without a self-reported TBI history. NMF identified 12 independent components derived from fractional anisotropy (FA) in a large dataset (n = 1,475) gathered through the ENIGMA (Enhancing Neuroimaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis) Military Brain Injury working group. Regressions were used to examine TBI- and mTBI-related associations in NMF-derived components while adjusting for age, sex, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and data acquisition site/scanner. We found significantly stronger age-dependent effects of lower FA in Veterans with TBI than Veterans without in four components (q \u3c 0.05), which are spatially unconstrained by traditionally defined WM tracts. One component, occupying the most peripheral location, exhibited significantly stronger age-dependent differences in Veterans with mTBI. We found NMF to be powerful and effective in detecting covarying patterns of FA associated with mTBI by applying standard parametric regression modeling. Our results highlight patterns of WM alteration that are differentially affected by TBI and mTBI in younger compared to older military Veterans

The ENIGMA sports injury working group - an international collaboration to further our understanding of sport-related brain injury

Sport-related brain injury is very common, and the potential long-term effects include a wide range of neurological and psychiatric symptoms, and potentially neurodegeneration. Around the globe, researchers are conducting neuroimaging studies on primarily homogenous samples of athletes. However, neuroimaging studies are expensive and time consuming, and thus current findings from studies of sport-related brain injury are often limited by small sample sizes. Further, current studies apply a variety of neuroimaging techniques and analysis tools which limit comparability among studies. The ENIGMA Sports Injury working group aims to provide a platform for data sharing and collaborative data analysis thereby leveraging existing data and expertise. By harmonizing data from a large number of studies from around the globe, we will work towards reproducibility of previously published findings and towards addressing important research questions with regard to diagnosis, prognosis, and efficacy of treatment for sport-related brain injury. Moreover, the ENIGMA Sports Injury working group is committed to providing recommendations for future prospective data acquisition to enhance data quality and scientific rigor

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Diagnostic Criteria for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective: To develop new diagnostic criteria for mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) that are appropriate for use across the lifespan and in sports, civilian trauma, and military settings. Design: Rapid evidence reviews on 12 clinical questions and Delphi method for expert consensus. Participants: The Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine Brain Injury Special Interest Group convened a Working Group of 17 members and an external interdisciplinary expert panel of 32 clinician-scientists. Public stakeholder feedback was analyzed from 68 individuals and 23 organizations. Results: The first 2 Delphi votes asked the expert panel to rate their agreement with both the diagnostic criteria for mild TBI and the supporting evidence statements. In the first round, 10 of 12 evidence statements reached consensus agreement. Revised evidence statements underwent a second round of expert panel voting, where consensus was achieved for all. For the diagnostic criteria, the final agreement rate, after the third vote, was 90.7%. Public stakeholder feedback was incorporated into the diagnostic criteria revision prior to the third expert panel vote. A terminology question was added to the third round of Delphi voting, where 30 of 32 (93.8%) expert panel members agreed that ‘the diagnostic label ‘concussion’ may be used interchangeably with ‘mild TBI’ when neuroimaging is normal or not clinically indicated.’ Conclusions: New diagnostic criteria for mild TBI were developed through an evidence review and expert consensus process. Having unified diagnostic criteria for mild TBI can improve the quality and consistency of mild TBI research and clinical care.</p

Linking Symptom Inventories using Semantic Textual Similarity

An extensive library of symptom inventories has been developed over time to measure clinical symptoms, but this variety has led to several long standing issues. Most notably, results drawn from different settings and studies are not comparable, which limits reproducibility. Here, we present an artificial intelligence (AI) approach using semantic textual similarity (STS) to link symptoms and scores across previously incongruous symptom inventories. We tested the ability of four pre-trained STS models to screen thousands of symptom description pairs for related content - a challenging task typically requiring expert panels. Models were tasked to predict symptom severity across four different inventories for 6,607 participants drawn from 16 international data sources. The STS approach achieved 74.8% accuracy across five tasks, outperforming other models tested. This work suggests that incorporating contextual, semantic information can assist expert decision-making processes, yielding gains for both general and disease-specific clinical assessment