Search

Background: In patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC), laboratory and molecular biomarkers may help define endotypes, identify therapeutic targets, prognosticate outcomes, and guide patient selection in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review to identify common data elements (CDEs) and key design elements (KDEs) for future coma and DoC research., Methods: The Curing Coma Campaign Biospecimens and Biomarkers work group, composed of seven invited members, reviewed existing biomarker and biospecimens CDEs and conducted a systematic literature review for laboratory and molecular biomarkers using predetermined search words and standardized methodology. Identified CDEs and KDEs were adjudicated into core, basic, supplemental, or experimental CDEs per National Institutes of Health classification based on level of evidence, reproducibility, and generalizability across different diseases through a consensus process., Results: Among existing National Institutes of Health CDEs, those developed for ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, and subarachnoid hemorrhage were most relevant to DoC and included. KDEs were common to all disease states and included biospecimen collection time points, baseline indicator, biological source, anatomical location of collection, collection method, and processing and storage methodology. Additionally, two disease core, nine basic, 24 supplemental, and 59 exploratory biomarker CDEs were identified. Results were summarized and generated into a Laboratory Data and Biospecimens Case Report Form (CRF) and underwent public review. A final CRF version 1.0 is reported here., Conclusions: Exponential growth in biomarkers development has generated a growing number of potential experimental biomarkers associated with DoC, but few meet the quality, reproducibility, and generalizability criteria to be classified as core and basic biomarker and biospecimen CDEs. Identification and adaptation of KDEs, however, contribute to standardizing methodology to promote harmonization of future biomarker and biospecimens studies in DoC. Development of this CRF serves as a basic building block for future DoC studies., (© 2023. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society.)

Background: Continuous EEG monitoring (cEEG) of critically ill patients is frequently utilized to detect non-convulsive seizures (NCS) and status epilepticus (NCSE). The indications for cEEG, as well as when and how to treat NCS, remain unclear. We aimed to describe the current practice of cEEG in critically ill patients to define areas of uncertainty that could aid in designing future research., Methods: We conducted an international survey of neurologists focused on cEEG utilization and NCS management., Results: Three-hundred and thirty physicians completed the survey. 83% use cEEG at least once per month and 86% manage NCS at least five times per year. The use of cEEG in patients with altered mental status was common (69%), with higher use if the patient had a prior convulsion (89%) or abnormal eye movements (85%). Most respondents would continue cEEG for 24 h. If NCS or NCSE is identified, the most common anticonvulsants administered were phenytoin/fosphenytoin, lorazepam, or levetiracetam, with slightly more use of levetiracetam for NCS than NCSE., Conclusions: Continuous EEG monitoring (cEEG) is commonly employed in critically ill patients to detect NCS and NCSE. However, there is substantial variability in current practice related to cEEG indications and duration and to management of NCS and NCSE. The fact that such variability exists in the management of this common clinical problem suggests that further prospective study is needed. Multiple points of uncertainty are identified that require investigation.