36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Paths to Successful Translation of New Therapies for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the Golden Age of Traumatic Brain Injury Research: A Pittsburgh Vision

      1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 4 , 1 , 5 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 6 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 10 , 3 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 11 , 1 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 13 , 4 , 17 , 18 , 10 , 16
      Journal of Neurotrauma
      Mary Ann Liebert Inc

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          New neuroprotective therapies for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) have not translated from pre-clinical to clinical success. Numerous explanations have been suggested in both the pre-clinical and clinical arenas. Coverage of TBI in the lay press has reinvigorated interest, creating a golden age of TBI research with innovative strategies to circumvent roadblocks. We discuss the need for more robust therapies. We present concepts for traditional and novel approaches to defining therapeutic targets. We review lessons learned from the ongoing work of the pre-clinical drug and biomarker screening consortium Operation Brain Trauma Therapy and suggest ways to further enhance pre-clinical consortia. Biomarkers have emerged that empower choice and assessment of target engagement by candidate therapies. Drug combinations may be needed, and it may require moving beyond conventional drug therapies. Precision medicine may also link the right therapy to the right patient, including new approaches to TBI classification beyond the Glasgow Coma Scale or anatomical phenotyping-incorporating new genetic and physiologic approaches. Therapeutic breakthroughs may also come from alternative approaches in clinical investigation (comparative effectiveness, adaptive trial design, use of the electronic medical record, and big data). The full continuum of care must also be represented in translational studies, given the important clinical role of pre-hospital events, extracerebral insults in the intensive care unit, and rehabilitation. TBI research from concussion to coma can cross-pollinate and further advancement of new therapies. Misconceptions can stifle/misdirect TBI research and deserve special attention. Finally, we synthesize an approach to deliver therapeutic breakthroughs in this golden age of TBI research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references150

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A trial of intracranial-pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury.

          Intracranial-pressure monitoring is considered the standard of care for severe traumatic brain injury and is used frequently, but the efficacy of treatment based on monitoring in improving the outcome has not been rigorously assessed. We conducted a multicenter, controlled trial in which 324 patients 13 years of age or older who had severe traumatic brain injury and were being treated in intensive care units (ICUs) in Bolivia or Ecuador were randomly assigned to one of two specific protocols: guidelines-based management in which a protocol for monitoring intraparenchymal intracranial pressure was used (pressure-monitoring group) or a protocol in which treatment was based on imaging and clinical examination (imaging-clinical examination group). The primary outcome was a composite of survival time, impaired consciousness, and functional status at 3 months and 6 months and neuropsychological status at 6 months; neuropsychological status was assessed by an examiner who was unaware of protocol assignment. This composite measure was based on performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status and calculated as a percentile (with 0 indicating the worst performance, and 100 the best performance). There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, a composite measure based on percentile performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status (score, 56 in the pressure-monitoring group vs. 53 in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.49). Six-month mortality was 39% in the pressure-monitoring group and 41% in the imaging-clinical examination group (P=0.60). The median length of stay in the ICU was similar in the two groups (12 days in the pressure-monitoring group and 9 days in the imaging-clinical examination group; P=0.25), although the number of days of brain-specific treatments (e.g., administration of hyperosmolar fluids and the use of hyperventilation) in the ICU was higher in the imaging-clinical examination group than in the pressure-monitoring group (4.8 vs. 3.4, P=0.002). The distribution of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. For patients with severe traumatic brain injury, care focused on maintaining monitored intracranial pressure at 20 mm Hg or less was not shown to be superior to care based on imaging and clinical examination. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01068522.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Classification of traumatic brain injury for targeted therapies.

            The heterogeneity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered one of the most significant barriers to finding effective therapeutic interventions. In October, 2007, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with support from the Brain Injury Association of America, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, convened a workshop to outline the steps needed to develop a reliable, efficient and valid classification system for TBI that could be used to link specific patterns of brain and neurovascular injury with appropriate therapeutic interventions. Currently, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the primary selection criterion for inclusion in most TBI clinical trials. While the GCS is extremely useful in the clinical management and prognosis of TBI, it does not provide specific information about the pathophysiologic mechanisms which are responsible for neurological deficits and targeted by interventions. On the premise that brain injuries with similar pathoanatomic features are likely to share common pathophysiologic mechanisms, participants proposed that a new, multidimensional classification system should be developed for TBI clinical trials. It was agreed that preclinical models were vital in establishing pathophysiologic mechanisms relevant to specific pathoanatomic types of TBI and verifying that a given therapeutic approach improves outcome in these targeted TBI types. In a clinical trial, patients with the targeted pathoanatomic injury type would be selected using an initial diagnostic entry criterion, including their severity of injury. Coexisting brain injury types would be identified and multivariate prognostic modeling used for refinement of inclusion/exclusion criteria and patient stratification. Outcome assessment would utilize endpoints relevant to the targeted injury type. Advantages and disadvantages of currently available diagnostic, monitoring, and assessment tools were discussed. Recommendations were made for enhancing the utility of available or emerging tools in order to facilitate implementation of a pathoanatomic classification approach for clinical trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genomic responses in mouse models greatly mimic human inflammatory diseases.

              The use of mice as animal models has long been considered essential in modern biomedical research, but the role of mouse models in research was challenged by a recent report that genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Here we reevaluated the same gene expression datasets used in the previous study by focusing on genes whose expression levels were significantly changed in both humans and mice. Contrary to the previous findings, the gene expression levels in the mouse models showed extraordinarily significant correlations with those of the human conditions (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient: 0.43-0.68; genes changed in the same direction: 77-93%; P = 6.5 × 10(-11) to 1.2 × 10(-35)). Moreover, meta-analysis of those datasets revealed a number of pathways/biogroups commonly regulated by multiple conditions in humans and mice. These findings demonstrate that gene expression patterns in mouse models closely recapitulate those in human inflammatory conditions and strongly argue for the utility of mice as animal models of human disorders.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Neurotrauma
                Journal of Neurotrauma
                Mary Ann Liebert Inc
                0897-7151
                1557-9042
                February 2019
                February 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Safar Center for Resuscitation Research, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [2 ]Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [3 ]Department of Neurological Surgery, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [4 ]Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [5 ]University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [6 ]Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [7 ]Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [8 ]Health Promotion & Development, University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [9 ]Department of Critical Care Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC.
                [10 ]Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [11 ]Departments of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [12 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [13 ]Department of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [14 ]University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [15 ]Drug Discovery Institute, Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [16 ]Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [17 ]Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                [18 ]University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
                Article
                10.1089/neu.2018.6203
                30520681
                6be3e1eb-0220-44e3-a0db-594d2b413b2d
                © 2019

                https://www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article