Search

A trans-agency workshop on the blood-brain interface (BBI), sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Cancer Institute and the Combat Casualty Care Research Program at the Department of Defense, was conducted in Bethesda MD on June 7-8, 2016. The workshop was structured into four sessions: (1) blood sciences; (2) exosome therapeutics; (3) next generation in vitro blood-brain barrier (BBB) models; and (4) BBB delivery and targeting. The first day of the workshop focused on the physiology of the blood and neuro-vascular unit, blood or biofluid-based molecular markers, extracellular vesicles associated with brain injury, and how these entities can be employed to better evaluate injury states and/or deliver therapeutics. The second day of the workshop focused on technical advances in in vitro models, BBB manipulations and nanoparticle-based drug carrier designs, with the goal of improving drug delivery to the central nervous system. The presentations and discussions underscored the role of the BBI in brain injury, as well as the role of the BBB as both a limiting factor and a potential conduit for drug delivery to the brain. At the conclusion of the meeting, the participants discussed challenges and opportunities confronting BBI translational researchers. In particular, the participants recommended using BBI translational research to stimulate advances in diagnostics, as well as targeted delivery approaches for detection and therapy of both brain injury and disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcome after severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) differs substantially between hospitals. Explaining this variation begins with understanding the differences in structures and processes of care, particularly at intensive care units (ICUs) where acute TBI care takes place. We invited trauma medical directors (TMDs) from 187 centers participating in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) to complete a survey. The survey domains included ICU model, type, availability of specialized units, staff, training programs, standard protocols and order sets, approach to withdrawal of life support, and perceived level of neurosurgeons' engagement in the ICU management of TBI. One hundred forty-two TMDs (76%) completed the survey. Severe TBI patients are admitted to dedicated neurocritical care units in 52 hospitals (37%), trauma ICUs in 44 hospitals (31%), general ICUs in 34 hospitals (24%), and surgical ICUs in 11 hospitals (8%). Fifty-seven percent are closed units. Board-certified intensivists directed 89% of ICUs, whereas 17% were led by neurointensivists. Sixty percent of ICU directors were general surgeons. Thirty-nine percent of hospitals had critical care fellowships and 11% had neurocritical care fellowships. Fifty-nine percent of ICUs had standard order sets and 61% had standard protocols specific for TBI, with the most common protocol relating to intracranial pressure management (53%). Only 43% of TMDs were satisfied with the current level of neurosurgeons' engagement in the ICU management of TBI; 46% believed that neurosurgeons should be more engaged; 11% believed they should be less engaged. In the largest survey of North American ICUs caring for TBI patients, there is substantial variation in the current approaches to ICU care for TBI, highlighting multiple opportunities for comparative effectiveness research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Economic evaluations provide a unique opportunity to identify the optimal strategies for the diagnosis and management of traumatic brain injury (TBI), for which uncertainty is common and the economic burden is substantial. Objective The objective of this study was to systematically review and examine the quality of contemporary economic evaluations in the diagnosis and management of TBI. Methods Two reviewers independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment Database, EconLit, and the Tufts CEA Registry for comparative economic evaluations published from 2000 onward (last updated on August 30, 2013). Data on methods, results, and quality were abstracted in duplicate. The results were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively. Results Of 3539 citations, 24 economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. Nine were cost-utility, five were cost-effectiveness, three were cost-minimization, and seven were cost-consequences analyses. Only six studies were of high quality. Current evidence from high-quality studies suggests the economic attractiveness of the following strategies: a low medical threshold for computed tomography (CT) scanning of asymptomatic infants with possible inflicted TBI, selective CT scanning of adults with mild TBI as per the Canadian CT Head Rule, management of severe TBI according to the Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, management of TBI in dedicated neurocritical care units, and early transfer of patients with TBI with nonsurgical lesions to neuroscience centers. Conclusions Threshold-guided CT scanning, adherence to Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines, and care for patients with TBI, including those with nonsurgical lesions, in specialized settings appear to be economically attractive strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Decompressive craniectomy and barbiturate coma are often used as second-tier strategies when intracranial hypertension following severe traumatic brain injury is refractory to firstline treatments. Uncertainty surrounds the decision to choose either treatment option. We investigated which strategy is more economically attractive in this context. Design: We performed a cost-utility analysis. A Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation model with a life-long time horizon was created to compare quality-adjusted survival and cost of the two treatment strategies, from the perspective of healthcare payer. Model parameters were estimated from the literature. Two-dimensional simulation was used to incorporate parameter uncertainty into the model. Value of information analysis was conducted to identify major drivers of decision uncertainty and focus future research. Setting: Trauma centers in the United States. Subjects: Base case was a population of patients (mean age = 25 yr) who developed refractory intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. Interventions: We compared two treatment strategies: decompressive craniectomy and barbiturate coma. Measurements and Main Results: Decompressive craniectomy was associated with an average gain of 1.5 quality-adjusted life years relative to barbiturate coma, with an incremental costeffectiveness ratio of $9,565/quality-adjusted life year gained. Decompressive craniectomy resulted in a greater quality-adjusted life expectancy 86% of the time and was more cost-effective than barbiturate coma in 78% of cases if our willingness-to-pay threshold is $50,000/quality-adjusted life year and 82% of cases at a threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year. At older age, decompressive craniectomy continued to increase survival but at higher cost (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $197,906/ quality-adjusted life year at mean age = 85 yr). Conclusions: Based on available evidence, decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of refractory intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury provides better value in terms of costs and health gains than barbiturate coma. However, decompressive craniectomy might be less economically attractive for older patients. Further research, particularly on natural history of severe traumatic brain injury patients, is needed to make more informed treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]