Search

BackgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established risk factor for dementia but mechanisms are uncertain. Accurate TBI exposure classification is critical for cognitive aging research studies seeking to discover mechanisms and treatments of post-TBI dementia. Brief TBI screens, commonly used in epidemiological studies of cognitive aging, are insensitive, leading to exposure mis-classification. Comprehensive TBI interviews, while more sensitive, may be impractical.ObjectiveWe aimed to develop and validate a scalable, self-administered, comprehensive, web-based, TBI exposure survey for use in international cognitive aging research.MethodsWe adapted a gold-standard comprehensive TBI interview (the Ohio State University TBI Identification Method; OSU TBI-ID) into a self-administered web-based survey for older adults (Older Adult modification of the OSU TBI-ID; OA OSU TBI-ID). We assessed reliability of our web-based survey versus the gold-standard interview among 97 older adults with normal cognition and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In addition, we assessed sensitivity of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (NACC UDS) brief TBI screen versus the interview among 70 older adults with normal cognition.ResultsOur OA OSU TBI-ID web-based survey had good to excellent reliability versus the interview (κ 0.66-0.73; ICCs 0.68-0.81) even among the sub-set with MCI (κ 0.74-0.88; ICCs 0.76-0.85), except for several age-at-injury variables. The NACC UDS brief TBI screen missed 50% of TBI exposures identified using the OSU TBI-ID interview.ConclusionThe OSU TBI-ID interview and web-based survey may facilitate more accurate TBI exposure classification in cognitive aging research thereby accelerating discovery of targetable mechanisms of post-TBI dementia.

ObjectiveOur objective was to (1) evaluate the linguistic and cultural acceptability of a Spanish translation of the Ohio State University traumatic brain injury identification method (OSU TBI-ID) and (2) to assess the usability and acceptability of a tablet-based version of this instrument in a cohort of Spanish-dominant older adults.SettingUniversity clinical research center and local community center.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling Spanish-dominant adults age 50 years or older without dementia residing in the Bay Area of California (N=22).DesignCross-sectional cohort study.Main outcome measuresQualitative assessment of linguistic or cultural acceptability of a Spanish translation of the OSU TBI-ID as well as usability or acceptability of a tablet-based self-administered version of this instrument.ResultsThe Spanish translation had high linguistic and cultural acceptability and was further optimized based on participant feedback. Cognitive interviews to review survey wording revealed high levels of homogeneity in the clinical definitions and synonyms given by participants-for example, results for the clinical term "Quedó Inconsciente/Pérdida (temporal) de la conciencia" (To be unconscious/[Temporary] loss of consciousness) used in the survey included "perder el conocimiento" (loss of consciousness), "knockeado" (knocked out), "No es que esté dormida, porque está inconsciente, pero su corazón está todavía palpitando" (it's not that they're sleeping, because they're unconscious, but their heart is still palpitating). The tablet interface had low observer-based usability, revealing that participants with

Objective: To quantify the benefits versus harms of amantadine in the treatment of irritability and aggression following traumatic brain injury. Methods: Secondary outcome data from a randomized controlled multisite trial of amantadine 100 mg twice daily were used to calculate number‐needed‐to‐treat (NNT). Given prior findings of positive clinician‐perceived effects and low incidence of adverse events, we hypothesized low number‐needed‐to‐treat for benefit (NNTB; high benefit) and high number‐needed‐to‐treat for harm (NNTH; low risk) based on the clinician ratings, supporting the use of amantadine in clinical practice. Specifically, NNTB values were calculated using number of individuals with improvement on the Clinician Global Impressions–Global Improvement scale (GI). NNTH values were computed using number of individuals with worsening on the GI and experiencing serious and any adverse events. Results: Based on clinician ratings, on average for every six patients treated with amantadine rather than placebo, one extra patient would be expected to improve (NNTB = 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [3.3–76.8]). More participants in the placebo group worsened than in the amantadine group, but the result was not statistically significant (NNTH = −92.4; 95% CI: [NNTB −32.9 to infinity to NNTH −19.2]). The amantadine and placebo groups did not differ on the numbers of adverse events experienced during the trial. Conclusion: Clinician ratings suggest modest benefit of amantadine 100 mg twice daily with low risk to appropriately selected patients with adequate renal clearance. Thus, amantadine should be considered a treatment option for the experienced brain injury clinician. These data may support treatment decisions when a pharmaceutical agent is being considered to control irritability/aggression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of behavioral interventions using single-case experimental design (SCED) methodology and to identify behavioral interventions with sufficient evidence for possible inclusion in the development of guidelines for the management of challenging behaviors in adults following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods: As a subinvestigation of a larger systematic review process designed to identify evidence for guidelines development, the current review focused on studies using SCED methodology applied to persons with challenging behaviors following moderate to severe TBI. Articles were identified from a search of the published literature through January 2021, identifying studies in CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE/Ovid, and PsycINFO. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for design rigor to allow for effect size determination. The identified cases were then critically appraised using the RoBiNT (Risk-of-Bias in N-of-1 Trails) Scale to determine strength of evidence for causal inference. Results: Thirty-four studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 44 cases evaluated for effect of the treatment intervention on defined target behaviors. Seventeen cases had effect sizes rated as large, 22 cases as medium, 3 cases as small, and 3 as no effect. An observed trend was for large and medium effect sizes to be associated with lower RoBiNT Scale internal validity scores. Randomization, blinded provider and assessor, and assessment of treatment adherence were the internal validity items unlikely to meet criteria. Conclusions: SCED methodology was found to produce large and medium effect sizes for behavioral interventions targeting challenging behaviors following moderate to severe TBI. However, the strength of the evidence is limited because of weaknesses in study designs. Most of the studies failed to meet established internal validity criteria designed to reduce risk of bias in SCED studies as such rigor is difficult to establish or often not practical in clinical settings. Suggestions and recommendations are outlined for improving the quality of published cases using SCED methodology, which, in turn, will improve credibility of evidence and better inform the development of treatment guidelines for behavior regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]