Bob Roozenbeek

In this article, we review past and current experience in clinical trials of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), we discuss limitations and challenges, and we summarize current directions. The focus is on severe and moderate TBIs. A systematic literature search of the years from 1980 to 2009 revealed 27 large phase III trials in TBI; we were aware of a further 6 unpublished trials. Analysis of these 33 trials yielded interesting observations: There was a peak incidence of trial initiations that occurred in the mid-1990s with a sharp decline during the period from 2000 to 2004. Most trials that reported a significant treatment effect were studies on a therapeutic strategy (e.g., decompressive craniectomy, hypothermia), and these were single-center studies. Increasingly, studies have been shifting toward the Far East. The currently existing trial registries permit insight into ongoing or recently conducted trials. Compared with the past decade, the number of studies on neuroprotective agents taken forward into efficacy-oriented studies is low. In contrast, the number of studies on therapeutic strategies appears to be increasing again. The disappointing results in trials on neuroprotective agents in TBI have led to a critical reappraisal of clinical trial methodology. This has resulted in recommendations for preclinical workup and has triggered extensive analysis on approaches to improve the design and analysis of clinical trials in TBI. An interagency initiative toward standardization on selection and coding of data elements across the broad spectrum of TBI is ongoing, and will facilitate comparison of research findings across studies and encourage high-quality meta-analysis of individual patient data in the future.

OBJECTIVE: The International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury prognostic models predict outcome after traumatic brain injury but have not been compared in large datasets. The objective of this is study is to validate externally and compare the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and Corticoid Randomisation after Significant Head injury prognostic models for prediction of outcome after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: External validation study. PATIENTS: We considered five new datasets with a total of 9,036 patients, comprising three randomized trials and two observational series, containing prospectively collected individual traumatic brain injury patient data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes were mortality and unfavorable outcome, based on the Glasgow Outcome Score at 6 months after injury. To assess performance, we studied the discrimination of the models (by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves), and calibration (by comparison of the mean observed to predicted outcomes and calibration slopes). The highest discrimination was found in the Trauma Audit and Research Network trauma registry (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves between 0.83 and 0.87), and the lowest discrimination in the Pharmos trial (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves between 0.65 and 0.71). Although differences in predictor effects between development and validation populations were found (calibration slopes varying between 0.58 and 1.53), the differences in discrimination were largely explained by differences in case mix in the validation studies. Calibration was good, the fraction of observed outcomes generally agreed well with the mean predicted outcome. No meaningful differences were noted in performance between the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury models. More complex models discriminated slightly better than simpler variants. CONCLUSIONS: Since both the International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials and the Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury prognostic models show good generalizability to more recent data, they are valid instruments to quantify prognosis in traumatic brain injury.