Amantadine to improve neurorecovery in traumatic brain injury-associated diffuse axonal injury: a pilot double-blind randomized trial

Amantadine for Traumatic Brain Injury-Supporting Evidence and Mode of Action

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global clinical issue, requiring not only prevention but also effective treatment. Following TBI, diverse parallel and intertwined pathological mechanisms affecting biochemical, neurochemical, and inflammatory pathways can have a severe impact on the patient's quality of life. The current review summarizes the evidence for the utility of amantadine in TBI in connection to its mechanism of action. Amantadine, the drug combining multiple mechanisms of action, may offer both neuroprotective and neuroactivating effects in TBI patients. Indeed, the use of amantadine in TBI has been encouraged by several clinical practice guidelines/recommendations. Amantadine is also available as an infusion, which may be of particular benefit in unconscious patients with TBI due to immediate delivery to the central nervous system and the possibility of precise dosing. In other situations, orally administered amantadine may be used. There are several questions that remain to be addressed: can amantadine be effective in disorders of consciousness requiring long-term treatment and in combination with drugs approved for the treatment of TBI? Do the observed beneficial effects of amantadine extend to disorders of consciousness due to factors other than TBI? Well-controlled clinical studies are warranted to ultimately confirm its utility in the TBI and provide answers to these questions.

Musical and electrical stimulation as intervention in disorder of consciousness (DOC) patients: A randomised cross-over trial

BACKGROUND

Disorders of consciousness (DOC), i.e., unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) or vegetative state (VS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), are conditions that can arise from severe brain injury, inducing widespread functional changes. Given the damaging implications resulting from these conditions, there is an increasing need for rehabilitation treatments aimed at enhancing the level of consciousness, the quality of life, and creating new recovery perspectives for the patients. Music may represent an additional rehabilitative tool in contexts where cognition and language are severely compromised, such as among DOC patients. A further type of rehabilitation strategies for DOC patients consists of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation techniques (NIBS), including transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), affecting neural excitability and promoting brain plasticity.

OBJECTIVE

We here propose a novel rehabilitation protocol for DOC patients that combines music-based intervention and NIBS in neurological patients. The main objectives are (i) to assess the residual neuroplastic processes in DOC patients exposed to music, (ii) to determine the putative neural modulation and the clinical outcome in DOC patients of non-pharmacological strategies, i.e., tES(control condition), and music stimulation, and (iii) to evaluate the putative positive impact of this intervention on caregiver's burden and psychological distress.

METHODS

This is a randomised cross-over trial in which a total of 30 participants will be randomly allocated to one of three different combinations of conditions: (i) Music only, (ii) tES only (control condition), (iii) Music + tES. The music intervention will consist of listening to an individually tailored playlist including familiar and self-relevant music together with fixed songs; concerning NIBS, tES will be applied for 20 minutes every day, 5 times a week, for two weeks. After these stimulations two weeks of placebo treatments will follow, with sham stimulation combined with noise for other two weeks. The primary outcomes will be clinical, i.e., based on the differences in the scores obtained on the neuropsychological tests, such as Coma Recovery Scale-Revised, and neurophysiological measures as EEG, collected pre-intervention, post-intervention and post-placebo.

DISCUSSION

This study proposes a novel rehabilitation protocol for patients with DOC including a combined intervention of music and NIBS. Considering the need for rigorous longitudinal randomised controlled trials for people with severe brain injury disease, the results of this study will be highly informative for highlighting and implementing the putative beneficial role of music and NIBS in rehabilitation treatments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05706831, registered on January 30, 2023.

The effect of amantadine treatment on neurological outcome and mortality in mechanically ventilated severe head trauma patients in intensive care unit

This study aims to investigate the effect of amantadine use on neurological outcomes and mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Glasgow coma score [GCS] between 3 and 8) who have been followed up on mechanical ventilators in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data from the hospital's electronic records were retrospectively searched. Patients over 18 years of age, with severe brain trauma (GCS between 3-8), who were treated with endotracheal intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation at admission to the ICU, and who were treated with Amantadine hydrochloride at least once in the first week of follow-up were included in the study. To evaluate the patients' neurological outcomes, the GCS and FOUR scores were used. GCS and FOUR scores were recorded on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th days of the first week. In addition, the score difference between the 1st and 7th day was calculated for both scores. The patients were divided into 2 groups: those receiving amantadine treatment (Group A, n = 44) and the control group (Group C, n = 47). The median age of all patients was 39 (18-81) (P = .425). When Group A and Group C were compared, no statistically significant results were found between the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day GCS values (P = .474, P = .483, and P = 329, respectively). However, the difference in GCS values between day 1 and day 7 (∆ GCS 7-1) was statistically significant (P = .012). Similarly, when Group A and Group C were compared, no statistically significant results were found between the 1st, 3rd, and 7th day FOUR score values (P = .948, P = .471, and P = .057, respectively). However, the FOUR score values between day 1 and day 7 (∆ FOUR score 7-1) were statistically significant (P = .004). There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of ICU length of stay, duration of non-ICU hospital stay, and length of hospital stay (P = .222, P = .175, and P = .067, respectively). Amantadine hydrochloride may help improve neurological outcomes in patients with severe TBI. However, further research is needed to investigate this topic.

Pharmacotherapy to Improve Cognitive Functioning After Acquired Brain Injury: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Cognitive impairments, common sequelae of acquired brain injury (ABI), significantly affect rehabilitation and quality of life. Currently, there is no solid evidence-base for pharmacotherapy to improve cognitive functioning after ABI, nevertheless off-label use is widely applied in clinical practice. This meta-analysis and meta-regression aims to quantitatively aggregate the available evidence for the effects of pharmacological agents used in the treatment of cognitive impairments following ABI. We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, Medline Ovid, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases for randomized controlled and crossover trials. Meta-analytic effects were calculated for each pharmaceutical agent and targeted neuromodulator system. Cognitive outcome measures were aggregated across cognitive domains. Of 8,216 articles, 41 studies (4,434 patients) were included. The noradrenergic agent methylphenidate showed a small, significant positive effect on cognitive functioning in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI; k = 14, d = 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.56, P = 0.003). Specifically, methylphenidate was found to improve cognitive functions related to executive memory, baseline speed, inhibitory control, and variability in responding. The cholinergic drug donepezil demonstrated a large effect size, albeit based on a limited number of studies (k = 3, d = 1.68, P = 0.03). No significant effects were observed for other agents. Additionally, meta-regression analysis did not identify significant sources of heterogeneity in treatment response. Our meta-analysis supports the use of methylphenidate for enhancing cognitive functioning in patients with TBI. Although donepezil shows potential, it warrants further research. These results could guide clinical decision making, inform practice guidelines, and direct future pharmacotherapeutic research in ABI.

The effect of amantadine on acute cognitive disability after severe traumatic brain injury: An institutional pilot study

BACKGROUND

Amantadine is used in the post-acute care setting to improve cognitive function after a traumatic brain injury. Its utility in the acute postinjury period is unknown. In this pilot study, we sought to examine the effect of amantadine on short-term cognitive disability among patients with a severe traumatic brain injury and hypothesized that patients receiving amantadine would have a greater improvement in disability throughout their acute hospitalization.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational study of patients ≥18 years with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8) at a level I trauma center between 2020 and 2022. Patients with penetrating trauma, death within 48 hours of admission, and no radiographic evidence of intracranial pathology were excluded. Patients were grouped according to whether they received amantadine. Our primary outcome was the change in cognitive disability, measured by the Disability Rating Scale (DRS), over the index hospitalization.

RESULTS

There were 55 patients in the cohort: 41.8% (n = 23) received amantadine and 58.2% (n = 32) did not. There were higher rates of motor vehicle collisions (65.2% vs 46.9%, P = .02), diffuse axonal injury (47.8% vs 18.8%, P = .02), intracranial pressure monitor use (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0001), and propranolol use (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0001) in the amantadine. There was a larger improvement in DRS scores among patients receiving amantadine (7.8 vs 3.6, P = .001), and amantadine independently predicted improvement in DRS scores (β, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-3.02, P = .03). Rates of discharge to traumatic brain injury rehabilitation were significantly higher in the amantadine group (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0002).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with severe traumatic brain injury, amantadine use in the acute postinjury period may be associated with an improvement in cognitive disability and discharge to traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.

Amantadine for functional improvement in patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Introduction

TBIs contribute in over one-third of injury-related deaths with mortality rates as high as 50% in trauma centers serving the most severe TBI. The effect of TBI on mortality is about 10% across all ages. Amantadine hydrochloride is one of the most commonly prescribed medications for patients undergoing inpatient neurorehabilitation who have disorders of consciousness.6 It is a dopamine (DA) receptor agonist and a N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist via dopamine release and dopamine reuptake inhibition. The current study will synthesize the current available evidence and show the effect of Amantadine in functional improvement after TBI.

Research question

Does Amantadine have an effect on functional improvement of TBI patients?

Material and methods

This systematic review included all randomized placebo-controlled trials that compare the use of Amantadine versus placebo for functional improvement of patients after TBI. Outcome measures included DRS, GCS and/or GOS scores.

Results

Three studies with a total of 281 patients were included in the quantitative analyses. GRADE assessments show that there was a high certainty of evidence for functional improvement in terms of DRS scores.

Discussion and conclusion

Evidence of this review show that the use of Amantadine may have a beneficial effect on functional outcome in moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries among adult patients. Given the still-limited body of knowledge, more relevant studies must be made exploring the impact of Amantadine therapies on promoting functional recovery within the brain injury rehabilitation care continuum, with the goals of achieving larger sample sizes and establishing the early- or later-treatment beneficial effects.

Does amantadine improve cognitive recovery in severe disorders of consciousness after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage? A double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Severe disorders of consciousness (sDoC) are a common sequela of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhages (aSAH), and amantadine has been used to improve cognitive recovery after traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of amantadine treatment on consciousness in patients with sDoC secondary to aSAH.

METHODS

This double-center, randomized, prospective, cohort study included patients ≥ 18 years old with sDoC after aSAH from February 2020 to September 2023. Individual patient data of patients were pooled to determine the effect of amantadine, in comparison to placebo. The primary outcomes at 3 and 6 months after the ictus were evaluated using the modified Rankin scale (mRS) and Glasgow outcome scale (GOS). In addition to all-cause mortality, secondary endpoints were assessed weekly during intervention by scores on Rappaport's Disability Rating Scale (RDRS) and Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRSR).

RESULTS

Overall, 37 patients with sDoC and initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) varying between 3 and 11 were recruited and randomized to amantadine (test group, n = 20) or placebo (control group, n = 17). The average age was 59.5 years (28 to 81 year-old), 24 (65%) were women, and the mean GCS at the beginning of intervention was 7.1. Most patients evolved to vasospasm (81%), with ischemia in 73% of them. The intervention was started between 30 to 180 days after the ictus, and administered for 6 weeks, with progressively higher doses. Neither epidemiological characteristics nor considerations regarding the treatment of the aneurysm and its complications differed between both arms. Overall mortality was 10.8% (4 deaths). During the study, four patients had potential adverse drug effects: two presented seizures, one had paralytic ileus, and another evolved with tachycardia; the medication was not suspended, only the dose was not increased. At data opening, 2 were taking amantadine and 2 placebo.

CONCLUSION

Despite some good results associated with amantadine in the literature, this study did not find statistically significant positive effects in cognitive recovery in patients with delayed post-aSAH sDoC. Further large randomized clinical trials in patients' subgroups are needed to better define its effectiveness and clarify any therapeutic window where it can be advantageous.

Pharmacology in Treatment of Patients with Disorders of Consciousness

Pharmacologic treatment of disorders of consciousness remains a critical but challenging task for clinicians. Amantadine has been shown to promote the rate of neurologic recovery for patients with traumatic disorders of consciousness when administered between 4 and 16 weeks, as demonstrated by a well-designed randomized control trial. While there are no large, randomized controlled trials to support the use of other dopaminergic medicines (bromocriptine, levodopa, apomorphine), there is a large body of literature implicating their role in improving alertness and responsiveness in disorders of consciousness. Zolpidem can increase the level of consciousness in a small subset of patients. Zolpidem and intrathecal baclofen likely increase the level of consciousness via the mesocircuit pathway. Psychostimulant medications can be initiated in patients, even without strong evidence to support their use, as long as basic principles of brain injury medicine are followed, and there are systems in place to evaluate therapeutic response.

Dissecting the Relationship Between Neuropsychiatric and Neurodegenerative Disorders

Neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) and neuropsychiatric disorders (NPDs) are two common causes of death in elderly people, which includes progressive neuronal cell death and behavioral changes. NDDs include Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, and motor neuron disease, characterized by cognitive defects and memory impairment, whereas NPDs include depression, seizures, migraine headaches, eating disorders, addictions, palsies, major depressive disorders, anxiety, and schizophrenia, characterized by behavioral changes. Mounting evidence demonstrated that NDDs and NPDs share an overlapping mechanism, which includes post-translational modifications, the microbiota-gut-brain axis, and signaling events. Mounting evidence demonstrated that various drug molecules, namely, natural compounds, repurposed drugs, multitarget directed ligands, and RNAs, have been potentially implemented as therapeutic agents against NDDs and NPDs. Herein, we highlighted the overlapping mechanism, the role of anxiety/stress-releasing factors, cytosol-to-nucleus signaling, and the microbiota-gut-brain axis in the pathophysiology of NDDs and NPDs. We summarize the therapeutic application of natural compounds, repurposed drugs, and multitarget-directed ligands as therapeutic agents. Lastly, we briefly described the application of RNA interferences as therapeutic agents in the pathogenesis of NDDs and NPDs. Neurodegenerative diseases and neuropsychiatric diseases both share a common signaling molecule and molecular phenomenon, namely, pro-inflammatory cytokines, γCaMKII and MAPK/ERK, chemokine receptors, BBB permeability, and the gut-microbiota-brain axis. Studies have demonstrated that any alterations in the signaling mentioned above molecules and molecular phenomena lead to the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative diseases, namely, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of amantadine hydrochloride for evaluating the functional improvement of patients following severe acute traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Considering the known derangements in the dopaminergic neurotransmitter systems following traumatic brain injury (TBI), dopamine agonists are used as a pharmacologic option. In this study, we evaluate the effects of amantadine hydrochloride on the functional improvement of severe TBI patients.

METHODS

Within a triple-blinded (patients, intervention administrators, and outcome assessors) placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the effects of amantadine (100 mg BD (twice a day) for 14 days, then 150 mg BD for another 7 days, and 200 mg BD for another 21 days) on outcome measurements of weekly mean Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and Disability Rating Scale (DRS), through six weeks of trial for 57 patients (29 amantadine, 28 placeboes) with severe TBI admitted in our hospital.

RESULTS

Although both groups had improvement in their DRS, the change from baseline was significantly better in the amantadine group (10.88±5.24 for amantadine vs. 8.04±4.07 for placebo, P=0.015). No significant difference was observed between groups for GOS (1.04±0.55 for amantadine vs. 1.12±1.05 for placebo, P=0.966).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, amantadine hydrochloride might improve the speed of functional ability improvement in severe TBI patients, evaluated by DRS, and is also well tolerated by patients. Although, there were some limitations in this study, including small sample size, short time interval, not providing a wash-off period and invalidity of GOS for measuring recovery rates in short-term periods.

Prognostication in Prolonged and Chronic Disorders of Consciousness

Patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (DOCs) longer than 28 days may continue to make significant gains and achieve functional recovery. Occasionally, this recovery trajectory may extend past 3 (for nontraumatic etiologies) and 12 months (for traumatic etiologies) into the chronic period. Prognosis is influenced by several factors including state of DOC, etiology, and demographics. There are several testing modalities that may aid prognostication under active investigation including electroencephalography, functional and anatomic magnetic resonance imaging, and event-related potentials. At this time, only one treatment (amantadine) has been routinely recommended to improve functional recovery in prolonged DOC. Given that some patients with prolonged or chronic DOC have the potential to recover both consciousness and functional status, it is important for neurologists experienced in prognostication to remain involved in their care.

Serotonin Syndrome Precipitated by Amantadine in a Patient With Persistent Post Concussive Symptoms - A Case Report

Symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) can persist for greater than 1 month in up to 20% of individuals, yet there are no current medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of specific concussion related sequelae. Amantadine, a dopamine agonist and N-Methyl-D-aspartate antagonist, is increasingly being used as a treatment option for individuals with traumatic brain injury across the spectrum of injury severity. This case report describes a 22-year-old individual who sustained an MTBI without loss of consciousness or post-traumatic amnesia after striking their head against a metal cabinet. The individual was referred to an interdisciplinary outpatient brain rehabilitation program secondary to persistent symptoms after MTBI, was prescribed amantadine for post-traumatic headache 97 days after injury, and subsequently developed symptoms of serotonin syndrome (SS) within 10 days of medication initiation. While SS caused by amantadine has been described in individuals with renal failure, this case report is the first to describe amantadine precipitating SS - confirmed by a validated diagnostic criterion and successfully treated with lorazepam and cyproheptadine - in a patient with normal renal function already on duloxetine, bupropion, and gabapentin. This case report is important in elucidating potential contributions of amantadine to the development of SS and highlighting the important role clinicians have in assessing for polypharmacy when prescribing amantadine for individuals with traumatic and acquired brain injuries.

Amantadine for NeuroenhaNcement in acutE patients Study - a protocol for a prospective pilot proof of concept phase IIb study in intensive and intermediate care unit patients (ANNES)

BACKGROUND

Persisting coma is a common complication in (neuro)intensive care in neurological disease such as acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage or subarachnoid hemorrhage. Amantadine acts as a nicotinic receptor antagonist, dopamine receptor agonist and non-competitive N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. Amantadine is a long-known drug, originally approved for treatment of influenza A and Parkinson`s Disease. It has been proven effective in improving vigilance after traumatic brain injury. The underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown, albeit anti-glutamatergic and dopaminergic effects might be most relevant. With limited evidence of amantadine efficacy in non-traumatic pathologies, the aim of our study is to assess the effects of amantadine for neuroenhancement in non-traumatic neurointensive patients with persisting coma.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, monocenter, phase IIb proof of concept open-label pilot study will be carried out. Based on the Simon design, 43 adult (neuro)intensive care patients who meet the clinical criteria of persisting coma not otherwise explained and < 8 points on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) will be recruited. Amantadine will be administered intravenously for five days at a dosage of 100 mg bid. The primary endpoint is an improvement of at least 3 points on the GCS. If participants present as non-responders (increase < 3 points or decrease on the GCS) within the first 48 h, the dosage will be doubled from day three to five. Secondary objectives aim to demonstrate that amantadine improves vigilance via alternative scales. Furthermore, the incidence of adverse events will be investigated and electroencephalography (EEG) will be recorded at baseline and end of treatment.

DISCUSSION

The results of our study will help to systematically assess the clinical utility of amantadine for treatment of persisting coma in non-traumatic brain injury. We expect that, in the face of only moderate treatment risk, a relevant number of patients will benefit from amantadine medication by improved vigilance (GCS increase of at least 3 points) finally leading to a better rehabilitation potential and improved functional neurological outcome. Further, the EEG data will allow evaluation of brain network states in relation to vigilance and potentially outcome prediction in this study cohort.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05479032.

Optimising recovery of consciousness after coma. From bench to bedside and vice versa

BACKGROUND

Several methods have been proposed to foster recovery of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC).

OBJECTIVE

Critically assess pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for patients with chronic DoC.

METHODS

A narrative mini-review, and critical analysis of the scientific literature on the various proposed therapeutic approaches, with particular attention to level of evidence, risk-benefit ratio, and feasibility.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Personalised sensory stimulation, median nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), amantadine and zolpidem all have favourable risk-benefit ratios and are easy to implement in clinical practice. These treatments should be proposed to every patient with chronic DoC. Comprehensive patient management should also include regular lifting, pain assessment and treatment, attempts to restore sleep and circadian rhythms, implementation of rest periods, comfort and nursing care, and a rehabilitation program with a multi-disciplinary team with expertise in this field. More invasive treatments may cause adverse effects and require further investigation to confirm preliminary, encouraging results and to better define responders' intervention parameters. Scientific studies are essential and given the severity of the disability and handicap that results from DoC, research in this area should aim to develop new therapeutic approaches.

Dynamics of Dopamine and Other Monoamines Content in Rat Brain after Single Low-Dose Carbon Nuclei Irradiation

Space radiation, presented primarily by high-charge and -energy particles (HZEs), has a substantial impact on the central nervous system (CNS) of astronauts. This impact, surprisingly, has not only negative but also positive effects on CNS functions. Despite the fact that the mechanisms of this effect have not yet been elucidated, several studies indicate a key role for monoaminergic networks underlying these effects. Here, we investigated the effects of acute irradiation with 450 MeV/n carbon (12C) nuclei at a dose of 0.14 Gy on Wistar rats; a state of anxiety was accessed using a light–dark box, spatial memory in a Morris water maze, and the dynamics of monoamine metabolism in several brain morphological structures using HPLC. No behavioral changes were observed. Irradiation led to the immediate suppression of dopamine turnover in the prefrontal cortex, hypothalamus, and striatum, while a decrease in the level of norepinephrine was detected in the amygdala. However, these effects were transient. The deferred effect of dopamine turnover increase was found in the hippocampus. These data underscore the ability of even low-dose 12C irradiation to affect monoaminergic networks. However, this impact is transient and is not accompanied by behavioral alterations.

N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists in improving cognitive deficits following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review the role of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) antagonists in managing post-TBI cognitive deficits.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted on Jan 12, 2021 without publication date or language restriction.

RESULTS

Forty-seven studies were included, involving 20 (42.6%) randomized controlled trials. Four (8.5%) studies had a low risk of bias (RoB), while 34 (72.3%) had unclear and nine (19.2%) had high RoB. Six NMDAR antagonists had been investigated: amantadine (n = 32), memantine (n = 4), magnesium (n = 4), traxoprodil (n = 3), selfotel (n = 2), and dextromethorphan (n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Although some benefits were observed, there are still some concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of NMDAR antagonists in improving post-TBI cognitive deficits. Further research is required to examine whether (i) these agents, notably amantadine, could accelerate cognitive improvement and shorten the hospital stay, (ii) these agents affect different cognitive domains/subdomains in the same direction, (iii) an optimal therapeutic time window exists, (iv) a member of this drug class can be proved to be effective without interfering in non-excitotoxic actions of glutamate, (v) they can be more effective as part of combination therapies or in particular subgroups of patients with TBI.

Current and Potential Pharmacologic Therapies for Traumatic Brain Injury

The present article reviewed the pharmacologic therapies of traumatic brain injury (TBI), including current and potential treatments. Pharmacologic therapies are an essential part of TBI care, and several agents have well-established effects in TBI care. In the acute phase, tranexamic acid, antiepileptics, hyperosmolar agents, and anesthetics are the mainstay of pharmacotherapy, which have proven efficacies. In the post-acute phase, SSRIs, SNRIs, antipsychotics, zolpidem and amantadine, as well as other drugs, have been used to manage neuropsychological problems, while muscle relaxants and botulinum toxin have been used to manage spasticity. In addition, increasing numbers of pre-clinical and clinical studies of pharmaceutical agents, including potential neuroprotective nutrients and natural therapies, are being carried out. In the present article, we classify the treatments into established and potential agents based on the level of clinical evidence and standard of practice. It is expected that many of the potential medicines under investigation will eventually be accepted as standard practice in the care of TBI patients.

Prescribing Patterns of Amantadine During Pediatric Inpatient Rehabilitation After Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicentered Retrospective Review From the Pediatric Brain Injury Consortium

OBJECTIVES

To describe dosing practices for amantadine hydrochloride and related adverse effects among children and young adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to pediatric inpatient rehabilitation units.

SETTING

Eight pediatric acute inpatient rehabilitation units located throughout the United States comprising the Pediatric Brain Injury Consortium.

PARTICIPANTS

Two-hundred thirty-four children and young adults aged 2 months to 21 years with TBI.

DESIGN

Retrospective data revie.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographic variables associated with the use of amantadine, amantadine dose, and reported adverse effects.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (21%) aged 0.9 to 20 years received amantadine during inpatient rehabilitation. Forty-five percent of patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation with a disorder of consciousness (DoC) were treated with amantadine, while 14% of children admitted with higher levels of functioning received amantadine. Children with DoC who were not treated with amantadine were younger than those with DoC who received amantadine (median 3.0 vs 11.6 years, P = .008). Recorded doses of amantadine ranged from 0.7 to 13.5 mg/kg/d; the highest total daily dose was 400 mg/d. Adverse effects were reported in 8 patients (16%); nausea/abdominal discomfort and agitation were most common, each reported in 3 patients. The highest reported dose without an adverse effect was 10.1 mg/kg/d.

CONCLUSION

During pediatric inpatient rehabilitation, amantadine was prescribed to children across a range of ages and injury severity and was most commonly prescribed to older children with DoC. Dosing varied widely, with weight-based dosing for younger/smaller children at both lower and higher doses than what had been previously reported. Prospective studies are needed to characterize the safety and tolerability of higher amantadine doses and optimize amantadine dosing parameters for children with TBI.

Psychiatric mimics of neurosurgical disorders

Every year there are about 22.6 million people in need of neurosurgical care around the world, and one or several interventions are required to save lives and restore functional losses in more than half of these cases (13.8 million). Most neurosurgical interventions are performed in patients with traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries, strokes, central nervous system (CNS) tumors, hydrocephalus, and epilepsy. In addition to neurological symptoms, many CNS disorders are often accompanied by cognitive and/or behavioral changes. Physical and psychological symptoms can be intertwined as follows: 1) neurological symptoms may be manifested as a result of complex psychological processes; 2) psychological disorders may be manifested as neurological symptoms; 3) neurological disorders commonly cause secondary psychological responses; 4) psychological disorder may be induced more or less directly by an organic brain disease. In the present paper, we focus on the psychiatric conditions occurring in the patients with neurosurgical disorders who either get prepared for surgery or have already received it.

Pharmacologic Therapies to Promote Recovery of Consciousness

Pharmacologic interventions are commonly used to support rehabilitation efforts of patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC). The 2018 practice guidelines recommend amantadine in adults with traumatic DoC to promote functional recovery, though several other stimulants are used off-label in clinical practice and trials, such as methylphenidate, bromocriptine, levodopa, and zolpidem. Differences in the mechanisms of action, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, and drug-drug interactions should be considered when selecting the best agent for each individual patient. Overall, pharmacologic stimulants may provide a safe and inexpensive pathway to increased functionality and participation in rehabilitation. This article provides a concise summary of scientific evidence supporting the use of pharmacologic therapies to stimulate recovery of consciousness in patients with DoC.

Treatment Trials in Disorders of Consciousness: Challenges and Future Directions

The evidence base supporting treatment interventions for patients with disorders of consciousness is limited, and rigorous treatment trials are needed to guide future management of this complex patient population. There are many potential study designs that can be employed to develop this evidence, but the process of selecting the optimal study design is challenging. This article reviews common obstacles that impede research progress in this population and a range of study designs that may be employed. In addition, we consider how the particular practical and scientific obstacles may drive selection of the optimal design and, in particular, how the optimal design changes as treatment research proceeds along the translational continuum from mechanistic discovery to real-world clinical impact.

Current Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality across all age groups globally. Currently, only palliative treatments exist, but these are suboptimal and do little to combat the progressive damage to the brain that occurs after a TBI. However, multiple experimental treatments are currently available that target the primary and secondary biochemical and cellular changes that occur after a TBI. Some of these drugs have progressed to clinical trials and are currently being evaluated for their therapeutic benefits in TBI patients. The aim of this study was to identify which drugs are currently being evaluated in clinical trials for TBI. A search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed on 3 December 2021 and all clinical trials that mentioned “TBI” OR “traumatic brain injury” AND “drug” were searched, revealing 362 registered trials. Of the trials, 46 were excluded due to the drug not being mentioned, leaving 138 that were completed and 116 that were withdrawn. Although the studies included 267,298 TBI patients, the average number of patients per study was 865 with a range of 5–200,000. Of the completed studies, 125 different drugs were tested in TBI patients but only 7 drugs were used in more than three studies, including amantadine, botulinum toxin A and tranexamic acid (TXA). However, previous clinical studies using these seven drugs showed variable results. The current study concludes that clinical trials in TBI have to be carefully conducted so as to reduce variability across studies, since the severity of TBI and timing of therapeutic interventions were key aspects of trial success.

Assessment of the effect of amantadine in patients with traumatic brain injury: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury is a global burden. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of amantadine for cognitive performance after traumatic brain injury.

METHODS

The systematic review was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews website under the registration number CRD42017080044. We used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to report the steps of meta-analysis. The search included electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, CENTRAL, ProQuest and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry). Critical care medicine journals and clinical neurology specialty were searched using www.scimagojr.com. There was no publication date restriction. Two authors assessed studies' relevance and extracted data. Studies were assessed for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis Program versions 2.0 and 3.0.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies out of 3,440 records were included in the systematic review, of which only 14 clinical trials and 6 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amantadine significantly enhanced the cognitive function relative to control group (mean difference [MD], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.66; p < 0.001, 16 studies, 1,127 participants, low certainty evidence). Consistent significant difference in favor of amantadine relative to control group was found (MD of 0.79 [95% CI, 0.34-1.24], very low certainty evidence, for cohort studies vs. MD of 0.40 [95% CI, 0.25-0.56], moderate certainty evidence, for RCTS). Starting amantadine in the first week after TBI had a significant effect on improving cognitive function (MD, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.45-1.49; 16 studies, 1,127 participants, low certainty). Amantadine showed a better effect when administered for less than 1 month (MD, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.56-1.11; low certainty) and to patients below 18 years of age (MD, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.32-0.99; low certainty) or to patients with less severe traumatic brain injury (MD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.62; low certainty). No statistically significant difference existed between amantadine and the control concerning the adverse events (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.88-3.44; p = 0.11, moderate certainty). Metaregression of the different clinical parameters, which are onset of treatment, age, and severity of traumatic brain injury, showed a statistically significant relation between onset of treatment and the effect size of amantadine. The relation between the other two parameters and the effect size of amantadine showed a marginal statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Amantadine may improve the cognitive function when used after TBI. Further research with high validity is needed to reach a solid conclusion about the use of amantadine in traumatic brain injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review/meta-analysis, level III.

Placebo-controlled trial of oral amantadine and zolpidem efficacy on the outcome of patients with acute severe traumatic brain injury and diffuse axonal injury

BACKGROUND

A constituent of diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is supposed to be present in about 1/3 of all severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) as specified by pathologic documents. Diffuse axonal injury is categorized by extensive injury to axons in the brain. A rise in the incidences of TBI, and the limited study to verified effect of drugs like amantadine and zolpidem in improving the consciousness levels of patients with acute traumatic brain injury with axonal injury enthused us to initiate this study in the acute TBI patients.

METHODS

In our randomized, controlled trial involving patients with acute severe TBI, we studied 66 patients in 3 groups. Group 1 (n=22) received oral amantadine, Group 2 (n=22) received oral zolpidem, whereas group 3 (n=22) received placebo, the first 8 days after injury respectively. The primary outcome measures included GCS (Glashow coma scale) through the initial admission, a complete medical history was recorded, and each patient had a meticulous physical and neurological investigation.

RESULTS

We found that the administration of amantadine in an acute phase after injury improved the rate of patients GCS and GOS (Glasgow Outcome Scale) compared with zolpidem and placebo groups, but without any significant statistical difference.

CONCLUSION

Our results has emphasized that because amantadine has intense biochemical effects on several ways, it appears to be beneficial in acute period after DAI-associated TBI.

Medication Management of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Neurological Conditions: A Dimensional Transdiagnostic Approach

Neuropsychiatric symptoms are prevalent in neurologic practice, but their complexity makes them challenging to manage. Many cognitive, affective, behavioral, and perceptual symptoms span multiple neurologic diagnoses-and there is prominent variability in neuropsychiatric symptom burden for a given condition. There is also a relative lack of robust controlled clinical trial evidence and expert consensus recommendations for a range of neuropsychiatric symptom presentations. Thus, the categorical approach (e.g., a discrete diagnosis equals a specific set of medication interventions) used in many other medical conditions can sometimes have limited utility in commonly encountered neuropsychiatric clinical scenarios. In this review, we explore medication management for a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms using a dimensional transdiagnostic approach applied to the neurological patient. This approach allows the clinician to think beyond the boundaries of a discrete diagnosis and treat specific symptom domains (e.g., apathy, impulsivity). Pharmacologic considerations, including mechanisms of action and their application to various neurotransmitter systems and brain networks, are discussed, as well as general recommendations to optimize medication adherence and rapport with the patient. The dimensional, transdiagnostic approach to pharmacological management of patients with neurological conditions will help the clinician treat neuropsychiatric symptoms safely, effectively, and confidently.

Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients Receiving Amantadine to Improve Alertness After Traumatic Brain Injury

Background: Amantadine has been used off-label to improve alertness after traumatic brain injury (TBI). The goal of this study is to assess the mean change at 72 hours and in course of therapy (COT) Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score after amantadine initiation and to correlate the change in GCS score with participation in physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) among patients with TBI receiving amantadine during the first hospitalization. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, cohort study included patients ≥18 years old hospitalized for a TBI from August 2012 to February 2018 and received ≥1 dose of amantadine to increase alertness. The primary endpoint is the mean change in 72-hour GCS score after amantadine initiation. The secondary endpoint is the mean change in COT GCS score after amantadine initiation and the correlation between the change in GCS score and percent PT and OT participation at 72 hours and during the COT. Results: Seventy-nine patients were included. The mean age of patients was 41 years, and 79.8% of the patients were men. The mean change in 72-hour GCS score was +0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09-1.42, P = .027), and the mean change in COT GCS score was +2.29 (95% CI = 1.68-2.90, P < .001). There was no significant correlation between the increase in GCS score and percent PT/OT session participation at 72 hours and during the COT, r = -0.15 (P = .24) and r = -0.02 (P = .74), respectively. The percent PT/OT session participation at 72-hour post-amantadine initiation was 61.3% compared with 65.9% during the COT. Conclusion: There were small but statistically significant increases in the mean change at 72 hours and in COT GCS score; however, they were not correlated with percent PT/OT participation. Other studies are needed to determine the appropriate time and GCS score to initiate amantadine along with the optimal dose in the inpatient setting.

Early amantadine treatment reduces the risk of death in patients with large hemisphere infarctions:a Chinese hospital-based study

Background

Amantadine hydrochloride is one of the most frequently prescribed drugs for patients with severe traumatic brain injury in restoring consciousness and accelerating the pace of functional recovery. However, there is a paucity of studies on the effectiveness of amantadine in patients with severe stroke especially large hemisphere infarction (LHI). The present study aimed to investigate whether amantadine treatment is associated with better clinical outcomes in conservatively treated LHI patients.

Methods

We retrospectively collected conservatively treated LHI patients according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment regimen, whether they did receive amantadine hydrochloride in addition to standard therapy (ST) or not. The primary outcomes were in-hospital death, 3-month mortality, and unfavorable outcome (defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 4 to 6). All outcomes were compared between the two groups before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the association between early amantadine hydrochloride treatment and clinical outcomes in LHI patients.

Results

Thirty-one LHI patients treated with amantadine combined with ST and 127 patients treated with ST were enrolled. Amantadine group had a shorter prehospital delay (median: 2 vs. 10 h), a higher baseline NIHSS score (21.71 ± 4.76 vs. 17.49 ± 5.84), and a higher rate of dominant hemisphere involvement (67.74% vs. 45.67%). After PSM, amantadine treatment significantly reduced the risk of in-hospital death (7.41% vs. 31.11%, p=0.019) and 3-month mortality (25.93% vs. 55.56%, p=0.008). Amantadine treatment yielded a significant decrease in death in-hospital (before PSM: OR 0.143, 95% CI 0.034 to 0.605; after PSM: OR 0.113, 95% CI 0.020 to 0.635) and 3-month mortality (before PSM: OR 0.214, 95% CI 0.077 to 0.598; after PSM: OR 0.176, 95% CI 0.053 to 0.586) in unmatched and matched multivariate analyses.

Conclusion

The results of our study provide initial evidence that early amantadine treatment was associated with a decrease in death in conservatively treated LHI patients. Considering the limitations of observational study, randomized controlled trials with a large sample size may help provide a clearer picture of the utility of amantadine in LHI patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-021-02444-w.

Amantadine in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and other movement disorders

The efficacy of amantadine in the symptomatic treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease, discovered serendipitously more than 50 years ago, has stood the test of time and the drug is still commonly used by neurologists today. Its pharmacological actions are unique in combining dopaminergic and glutamatergic properties, which account for its dual effect on parkinsonian signs and symptoms and levodopa-induced dyskinesias. Furthermore, amantadine has additional and less well-defined pharmacological effects, including on anticholinergic and serotonergic activity. Evidence from randomised controlled trials over the past 5 years has confirmed the efficacy of amantadine to treat levodopa-induced dyskinesias in patients with Parkinson's disease, and clinical studies have also provided support for its potential to reduce motor fluctuations. Other uses of amantadine, such as in the treatment of drug-induced parkinsonism, atypical parkinsonism, Huntington's disease, or tardive dyskinesia, lack a strong evidence base. Future trials should examine its role in the management of motor and non-motor symptoms in patients with early Parkinson's disease and those with other movement disorders.

Does amantadine maintain function in long-established brain injury? A single case experimental design

OBJECTIVE

The role of dopamine agonist (DA) in restoring consciousness and cognition in recovery phase following acquired brain injury (ABI) is established ^(1-5). The role in later recovery is less well defined. We report a single case experimental design (SCED) trial of amantadine demonstrating improvement in function, six years following ABI.

METHOD

A scoring system based on established abilities in personal care and interaction was used to identify tasks with component actions, 34 actions in total, each ranked in terms of quality of response to a request or prompt. Actions were scored on maintenance dose amantadine; on withdrawal; and after reintroduction. Daytime sleep duration was also recorded.

RESULTS

At 3^rd and 5^th weeks post withdrawal, deterioration was noted in 27 of 34 graded activities. At 3^rd and 5^th weeks following reintroduction, all but 3 grades returned to baseline or better. Afternoon sleep duration increased from 35 to 80 minutes during withdrawal period returning towards baseline on amantadine resumption.

CONCLUSION

We believe this provides evidence for benefit of amantadine in sustaining function following ABI. The SCED model used provides a template for others to use to identify comparable change in similar trials.

Safety Considerations for the Use of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as Treatment for Coma Recovery in People With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Objective:

For persons in states of disordered consciousness (DoC) after severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI), we report cumulative findings from safety examinations, including serious adverse events (AEs) of a repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) parameter protocol in 2 different studies.

Participants:

Seven persons in states of DoC after sTBI with widespread neuropathology, but no large lesions in proximity to the site of rTMS. One participant had a ventriculoperitoneal shunt with programmable valve.

Methods:

Two clinical trials each providing 30 rTMS sessions to the right or left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, involving 300 to 600 pulses over 1 or 2 sessions daily. One study provided concomitant amantadine. Safety indicators monitored related to sleep, temperature, blood pressure, skin integrity, sweating, weight loss, infections, and seizure.

Results:

Average changes for monitored indicators were of mild severity, with 75 nonserious AEs and 1 serious AE (seizure). The participant incurring a seizure resumed rTMS while taking antieplieptics without further seizure activity.

Conclusions:

Considering elevated risks for this patient population and conservative patient selection, findings indicate a relatively safe profile for the specified rTMS protocols; however, potential for seizure induction must be monitored. Future research for this population can be broadened to include patients previously excluded on the basis of profiles raising safety concerns.

Dual Neurostimulant Therapy May Optimize Acute Neurorecovery for Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries

BACKGROUND

Neurostimulants (NS) can be used to treat patients with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with altered levels of consciousness. We sought to determine if amantadine alone (monotherapy) versus amantadine + methylphenidate (dual therapy) would correlate with better neurorecovery (NR) among acutely hospitalized patients with a severe TBI.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of adult patients admitted to our level I trauma center from 2016-2019 with a severe TBI. NR was calculated by dividing the difference between admission and discharge Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores by 12. Resulting ratios were used to divide the cohort into two groups: excellent NR (1) and non-excellent NR (<1).

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients comprised the cohort; 19.7% (n = 15) had excellent NR. The excellent NR group had a larger proportion of patients receiving dual therapy compared to the non-excellent group (86.7% versus 59%, P = 0.04). In monotherapy (n = 27), amantadine was initiated 13 (8-20) d following injury and treatment lasted 7 (2-16) d. In dual therapy (n = 49), amantadine was initiated 12 (6-19) d following injury and continued for 9 (4-25.5) d. Methylphenidate was initiated 15 (7-20.5) d following injury and continued for 5 (2-13.5) d. After adjusting for confounders, dual versus monotherapy predicted excellent NR (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 38.9, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

During the acute hospitalization for a severe TBI, dual NS therapy compared to monotherapy is associated with an increased likelihood of excellent NR. Larger prospective trials are warranted to validate these findings.

Amantadine and Modafinil as Neurostimulants During Post-stroke Care: A Systematic Review

Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive review has been published. This systematic review describes amantadine and modafinil administration practices post-stroke, evaluates timing and impact on clinical effectiveness measures, and identifies the incidence of potential adverse drug effects. A librarian-assisted search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases identified all English-language publications with "amantadine" or "modafinil" in the title or abstract from inception through February 1, 2020. Publications meeting predefined Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) criteria were included: Patients (≥ 18 years of age post-stroke); Intervention (amantadine or modafinil administration); Comparison (pretreatment baseline or control group); Outcomes (cognitive or functional outcome). Amantadine and modafinil administration practices, cognitive and functional outcomes, and incidence of potential adverse drug effects were collected following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance. Quantitative analyses were not performed due to heterogeneity in the clinical effectiveness measures; descriptive data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range). Of 12,620 publications initially identified, 10 amantadine publications (n = 121 patients) and 12 modafinil publications (n = 120 patients) were included. Amantadine was initiated 39 (16, 385) days post-stroke, with most common initial doses of 100 mg once or twice daily (range 100-200 mg/day), and final daily dose of 200 (188, 200) mg/day. Modafinil was initiated 170 (17, 496) days post-stroke, with initial and final daily doses of 100 (100, 350) mg/day and 200 (100, 350) mg/day, respectively. The most common indication was consciousness disorders for amantadine (n = 3/10 publications; 30%) and fatigue for modafinil (n = 5/12; 42%). Forty unique clinical effectiveness measures (1.8 per study) with 141 domains (6.4 per study) were described across all studies. A positive response in at least one clinical effectiveness measure was reported in 70% of amantadine publications and 83% of modafinil publications. Only one publication each for amantadine (10%; n = 5 patients) and modafinil (8%; n = 21 patients) studied acutely hospitalized or ICU patients; both were randomized studies showing improvements in neurocognitive function for amantadine and fatigue for modafinil. Potential adverse drug effects were reported in approximately 50% of publications, most commonly visual hallucinations with amantadine (2% of patients) and dizziness (5% of patients) and dry eyes or mouth (5% of patients). Amantadine and modafinil may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but higher-quality data are needed to confirm this conclusion, especially in the acute care setting.

Pharmacological Treatment of Agitation and/or Aggression in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review of Reviews

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the available literature on the pharmacological management of agitation and/or aggression in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), synthesize the available data, and provide guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review of systematic reviews.

MAIN MEASURES

A literature review of the following websites was performed looking for systematic reviews on the treatment of agitation and/or aggression among patients with TBI: PubMed, CINAHL, DynaMed, Health Business Elite, and EBSCO (Psychology and behavioral sciences collection). Two researchers independently assessed articles for meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were extracted on year of publication, reviewed databases, dates of coverage, search limitations, pharmacological agents of interest, and a list of all controlled studies included. The included controlled studies were then examined to determine potential reasons for any difference in recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature review led to 187 citations and 67 unique publications after removing the duplicates. Following review of the title/abstracts and full texts, a total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The systematic reviews evaluated the evidence for safety and efficacy of the following medications: amantadine, amphetamines, methylphenidate, antiepileptics, atypical and typical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, β-blockers, and sertraline.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the results of this literature review, the authors recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and haloperidol for treating agitation and/or aggression in the context of TBI. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine in particular) can be considered as practical alternatives for the as-needed management of agitation and/or aggression in lieu of benzodiazepines and haloperidol. Amantadine, β-blockers (propranolol and pindolol), antiepileptics, and methylphenidate can be considered for scheduled treatment of agitation and/or aggression in patients with TBI.

Treelet transform analysis to identify clusters of systemic inflammatory variance in a population with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory cascades following traumatic brain injury (TBI) can have both beneficial and detrimental effects on recovery. Single biomarker studies do not adequately reflect the major arms of immunity and their relationships to long-term outcomes. Thus, we applied treelet transform (TT) analysis to identify clusters of interrelated inflammatory markers reflecting major components of systemic immune function for which substantial variation exists among individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI.

METHODS

Serial blood samples from 221 adults with moderate-to-severe TBI were collected over 1-6 months post-injury (n = 607 samples). Samples were assayed for 33 inflammatory markers using Millipore multiplex technology. TT was applied to standardized mean biomarker values generated to identify latent patterns of correlated markers. Treelet clusters (TC) were characterized by biomarkers related to adaptive immunity (TC1), innate immunity (TC2), soluble molecules (TC3), allergy immunity (TC4), and chemokines (TC5). For each TC, a score was generated as the linear combination of standardized biomarker concentrations and cluster load for each individual in the cohort. Ordinal logistic or linear regression was used to test associations between TC scores and 6- and 12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and covariates.

RESULTS

When adjusting for clinical covariates, TC5 was significantly associated with 6-month GOS (odds ratio, OR = 1.44; p-value, p = 0.025) and 6-month DRS scores (OR = 1.46; p = 0.013). TC5 relationships were attenuated when including all TC scores in the model (GOS: OR = 1.29, p = 0.163; DRS: OR = 1.33, p = 0.100). When adjusting for all TC scores and covariates, only TC3 was associated with 6- and 12-month GOS (OR = 1.32, p = 0.041; OR = 1.39, p = 0.002) and also 6- and 12-month DRS (OR = 1.38, p = 0.016; OR = 1.58, p = 0.0002). When applying TT to inflammation markers significantly associated with 6-month GOS, multivariate modeling confirmed that TC3 remained significantly associated with GOS. Biomarker cluster membership remained consistent between the GOS-specific dendrogram and overall dendrogram.

CONCLUSIONS

TT effectively characterized chronic, systemic immunity among a cohort of individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI. We posit that chronic chemokine levels are effector molecules propagating cellular immune dysfunction, while chronic soluble receptors are inflammatory damage readouts perpetuated, in part, by persistent dysfunctional cellular immunity to impact neuro-recovery.

Role of the Dopaminergic System in the Striatum and Its Association With Functional Recovery or Rehabilitation After Brain Injury

Disabilities are estimated to occur in approximately 2% of survivors of traumatic brain injury (TBI) worldwide, and disability may persist even decades after brain injury. Facilitation or modulation of functional recovery is an important goal of rehabilitation in all patients who survive severe TBI. However, this recovery tends to vary among patients because it is affected by the biological and physical characteristics of the patients; the types, doses, and application regimens of the drugs used; and clinical indications. In clinical practice, diverse dopaminergic drugs with various dosing and application procedures are used for TBI. Previous studies have shown that dopamine (DA) neurotransmission is disrupted following moderate to severe TBI and have reported beneficial effects of drugs that affect the dopaminergic system. However, the mechanisms of action of dopaminergic drugs have not been completely clarified, partly because dopaminergic receptor activation can lead to restoration of the pathway of the corticobasal ganglia after injury in brain structures with high densities of these receptors. This review aims to provide an overview of the functionality of the dopaminergic system in the striatum and its roles in functional recovery or rehabilitation after TBI.

Drug Repurposing in the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most common cause of morbidity among trauma patients; however, an effective pharmacological treatment has not yet been approved. Individuals with TBI are at greater risk of developing neurological illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). The approval process for treatments can be accelerated by repurposing known drugs to treat the growing number of patients with TBI. This review focuses on the repurposing of N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), a drug currently approved to treat hepatotoxic overdose of acetaminophen. NAC also has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that may be suitable for use in therapeutic treatments for TBI. Minocycline (MINO), a tetracycline antibiotic, has been shown to be effective in combination with NAC in preventing oligodendrocyte damage. (-)-phenserine (PHEN), an anti-acetylcholinesterase agent with additional non-cholinergic neuroprotective/neurotrophic properties initially developed to treat AD, has demonstrated efficacy in treating TBI. Recent literature indicates that NAC, MINO, and PHEN may serve as worthwhile repositioned therapeutics in treating TBI.

Recovery from disorders of consciousness: mechanisms, prognosis and emerging therapies

Substantial progress has been made over the past two decades in detecting, predicting and promoting recovery of consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) caused by severe brain injuries. Advanced neuroimaging and electrophysiological techniques have revealed new insights into the biological mechanisms underlying recovery of consciousness and have enabled the identification of preserved brain networks in patients who seem unresponsive, thus raising hope for more accurate diagnosis and prognosis. Emerging evidence suggests that covert consciousness, or cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), is present in up to 15-20% of patients with DoC and that detection of CMD in the intensive care unit can predict functional recovery at 1 year post injury. Although fundamental questions remain about which patients with DoC have the potential for recovery, novel pharmacological and electrophysiological therapies have shown the potential to reactivate injured neural networks and promote re-emergence of consciousness. In this Review, we focus on mechanisms of recovery from DoC in the acute and subacute-to-chronic stages, and we discuss recent progress in detecting and predicting recovery of consciousness. We also describe the developments in pharmacological and electrophysiological therapies that are creating new opportunities to improve the lives of patients with DoC.

Amantadine: reappraisal of the timeless diamond-target updates and novel therapeutic potentials

The aim of the current review was to provide a new, in-depth insight into possible pharmacological targets of amantadine to pave the way to extending its therapeutic use to further indications beyond Parkinson's disease symptoms and viral infections. Considering amantadine's affinities in vitro and the expected concentration at targets at therapeutic doses in humans, the following primary targets seem to be most plausible: aromatic amino acids decarboxylase, glial-cell derived neurotrophic factor, sigma-1 receptors, phosphodiesterases, and nicotinic receptors. Further three targets could play a role to a lesser extent: NMDA receptors, 5-HT3 receptors, and potassium channels. Based on published clinical studies, traumatic brain injury, fatigue [e.g., in multiple sclerosis (MS)], and chorea in Huntington's disease should be regarded potential, encouraging indications. Preclinical investigations suggest amantadine's therapeutic potential in several further indications such as: depression, recovery after spinal cord injury, neuroprotection in MS, and cutaneous pain. Query in the database http://www.clinicaltrials.gov reveals research interest in several further indications: cancer, autism, cocaine abuse, MS, diabetes, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, obesity, and schizophrenia.

[The use of amantadine sulfate in ischemic stroke]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of amantadine sulfate in patients with ischemic stroke.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety five patients with ischemic stroke were randomized within 120 hours from the onset of symptoms into two groups: patients of the main group received amantadine sulfate (400 mg/day intravenously) for 4 days, followed by oral administration at 400 mg/day for 6 days; the comparison group received standard therapy according to the order of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation No. 928n. The observation period for the patients was 90 days. The main indicators of treatment efficacy were: Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), Bartel Index (BI), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and mortality. Any side effects were recorded to assess safety.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

There were no statistically significant differences between the main group and the comparison group for the main parameters. However, we observed better results in patients with mild stroke (NIHSS <13 points) and atherothrombotic pathogenetic variant of ischemic stroke. This observation should be confirmed in subsequent clinical studies.

A Review of Pharmacologic Neurostimulant Use During Rehabilitation and Recovery After Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic neurostimulants after neurological injuries such as ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI), critically evaluate the available literature, and make recommendations regarding which neurostimulants should be considered for use in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of PubMed was performed (1953 to October 2020) to identify relevant articles. Search terms included the following: "neurostimulant, neurorehabilitation" AND "traumatic brain injury, cerebrovascular accident, or stroke." This review is limited to prospective studies and observational trials.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language studies conducted in humans were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Cognitive and motor deficits caused by stroke and TBI account for high rates of long-term disability. Although not well-established, pharmacologic agents, broadly characterized as neurostimulants, may be prescribed after brain injury to treat these deficits. When prescribing these medications, it is imperative to be aware of the supporting evidence in order to accurately gauge the risk-benefit profile of each agent.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The following presents a literature review critically evaluating clinical studies that investigate neurostimulant use after brain injury. The intent of this review is to serve as an evidence-based guide for clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacologic agent with the most supporting literature is amantadine used for cognitive improvement after TBI. Other neurostimulants with positive, despite more limited, evidence include methylphenidate, modafinil, levodopa, and citalopram. Caution is warranted with other neurostimulants given higher rates of adverse effects or lack of benefit observed in clinical trials.

Persistent vegetative state after severe cerebral hemorrhage treated with amantadine: A retrospective controlled study

Amantadine is currently recommended for use in patients of posttraumatic brain injury with unconsciousness. However, the application of amantadine in consciousness disturbance after cerebral hemorrhage has only been rarely reported. This allows for a further exploration of the role of amantadine in the treatment of PVS resulting from severe cerebral hemorrhage.Retrospective cohort study from 1/2015 to 7/2019 in Beijing Chaoyang hospital. We included adult patients treated with amantadine after severe cerebral hemorrhage in PVS. Primary outcome was time of consciousness recovery and Glasgow Out Scale scores after 5 months from onset. We compared characteristics and outcomes to a control cohort. matched on age, Coma Recovery Scale-Revised score, volume and location of hemorrhage.Among the 12 patients who received amantadine treatment, 6 patients regained consciousness (50%) after 5 months of disease onset, but were still severely disabled. Besides, the time for regaining consciousness was within 3 months of disease onset. The remaining 6 patients were still in a PVS. Compared with the amantadine group, the consciousness recovery rate (50% vs 33.3%, P = .68) after 5 months in the nested control group was not significantly different. The awakening time for patients in the amantadine group was earlier than the control group (100% vs 25%, P = .03).In this study, amantadine can accelerate the recovery of consciousness in patients following severe cerebral hemorrhage. We recommend further randomized controlled studies to determine the efficacy of amantadine.

Neurophysiology and Treatment of Disorders of Consciousness Induced by Traumatic Brain Injury: Orexin Signaling as a Potential Therapeutic Target

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can cause disorders of consciousness (DOC) by impairing the neuronal circuits of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) structures, including the hypothalamus, which are responsible for the maintenance of the wakefulness and awareness. However, the effectiveness of drugs targeting ARAS activation is still inadequate, and novel therapeutic modalities are urgently needed.

METHODS

The goal of this work is to describe the neural loops of wakefulness, and explain how these elements participate in DOC, with emphasis on the identification of potential new therapeutic options for DOC induced by TBI.

RESULTS

Hypothalamus has been identified as a sleep/wake center, and its anterior and posterior regions have diverse roles in the regulation of the sleep/wake function. In particular, the posterior hypothalamus (PH) possesses several types of neurons, including the orexin neurons in the lateral hypothalamus (LH) with widespread projections to other wakefulness-related regions of the brain. Orexins have been known to affect feeding and appetite, and recently their profound effect on sleep disorders and DOC has been identified. Orexin antagonists are used for the treatment of insomnia, and orexin agonists can be used for narcolepsy. Additionally, several studies demonstrated that the agonists of orexin might be effective in the treatment of DOC, providing novel therapeutic opportunities in this field.

CONCLUSION

The hypothalamic-centered orexin has been adopted as the point of entry into the system of consciousness control, and modulators of orexin signaling opened several therapeutic opportunities for the treatment of DOC.

The use of amantadine in patients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome after severe cerebral hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Amantadine is currently recommended for use in patients of post-traumatic brain injury with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS). However, the application of amantadine in UWS after cerebral hemorrhage has only been rarely reported. This allows for a further exploration of the role of amantadine in the treatment of UWS resulting from a severe cerebral hemorrhage.

METHODS

We observed the changes of seven patients with UWS of intracerebral hemorrhage after taking amantadine. We also carried out a detailed neurological examination of the patient with disorders of consciousness to include or exclude subjects for the study. CRS-R score was used to evaluate the neurological recovery.

RESULTS

An improvement in consciousness was observed within 3-6 days after the start of amantadine administration in all seven cases (n = 7/7; 100%). Five patients recovered conscious and left aphasia, hemiplegia and other sequelae, and two patients recovered from UWS to minimally conscious state (MCS).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, amantadine administration showed substantial positive effects on recovery following severe cerebral hemorrhage. We recommend further randomized controlled studies to determine the efficacy of amantadine.

Amantadine and Modafinil as Neurostimulants Following Acute Stroke: A Retrospective Study of Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background/Objective

Neurostimulants may improve or accelerate cognitive and functional recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke (IS), or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), but few studies have described their safety and effectiveness in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this study was to describe amantadine and modafinil administration practices during acute stroke care starting in the ICU and to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

Methods

Consecutive adult ICU patients treated with amantadine and/or modafinil following acute non-traumatic IS, ICH, or SAH were evaluated. Neurostimulant administration data were extracted from the electronic medication administration record, including medication (amantadine, modafinil, or both), starting dose, time from stroke to initiation, and whether the neurostimulant was continued at hospital discharge. Patients were considered responders if they met two of three criteria within 9 days of neurostimulant initiation: increase in Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score ≥ 3 points from pre-treatment baseline, improved wakefulness or participation documented in caregiver notes, or clinical improvement documented in physical or occupational therapy notes. Potential confounders of the effectiveness assessment and adverse drug effects were also recorded.

Results

A total of 87 patients were evaluable during the 3.7-year study period, including 41 (47%) with ICH, 29 (33%) with IS, and 17 (20%) with SAH. The initial neurostimulant administered was amantadine in 71 (82%) patients, modafinil in 13 (15%), or both in 3 (3%) patients. Neurostimulants were initiated a median of 7 (4.25, 12.75) days post-stroke (range 1–27 days) for somnolence (77%), not following commands (32%), lack of eye opening (28%), or low GCS (17%). The most common starting dose was 100 mg twice daily for both amantadine (86%) and modafinil (54%). Of the 79 patients included in the effectiveness evaluation, 42 (53%) were considered responders, including 34/62 (55%) receiving amantadine monotherapy and 8/24 (33%) receiving both amantadine and modafinil at the time they met the definition of a responder. No patient receiving modafinil monotherapy was considered a responder. The median time from initiation to response was 3 (2, 5) days. Responders were more frequently discharged home or to acute rehabilitation compared to non-responders (90% vs 62%, p = 0.006). Among survivors, 63/72 (88%) were prescribed a neurostimulant at hospital discharge. The most common potential adverse drug effect was sleep disruption (16%).

Conclusions

Neurostimulant administration during acute stroke care may improve wakefulness. Future controlled studies with a neurostimulant administration protocol, prospective evaluation, and discretely defined response and safety criteria are needed to confirm these encouraging findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12028-020-00986-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.