Geoffrey T. Manley

A concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by traumatic brain injury (TBI) is long overdue. TBI is a public health challenge of vast, but insufficiently recognised, proportions. Worldwide, more than 50 million people have a TBI each year, and it is estimated that about half the world's population will have one or more TBIs over their lifetime. TBI is the leading cause of mortality in young adults and a major cause of death and disability across all ages in all countries, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been estimated that TBI costs the global economy approximately $US400 billion annually. Deficiencies in prevention, care, and research urgently need to be addressed to reduce the huge burden and societal costs of TBI. This Commission highlights priorities and provides expert recommendations for all stakeholders—policy makers, funders, health-care professionals, researchers, and patient representatives—on clinical and research strategies to reduce this growing public health problem and improve the lives of people with TBI.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) constitutes 10% to 15% of all strokes and remains without a treatment of proven benefit. Despite several existing outcome prediction models for ICH, there is no standard clinical grading scale for ICH analogous to those for traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or ischemic stroke. METHODS: Records of all patients with acute ICH presenting to the University of California, San Francisco during 1997-1998 were reviewed. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were identified by logistic regression. A risk stratification scale (the ICH Score) was developed with weighting of independent predictors based on strength of association. RESULTS: Factors independently associated with 30-day mortality were Glasgow Coma Scale score (P<0.001), age >/=80 years (P=0.001), infratentorial origin of ICH (P=0.03), ICH volume (P=0.047), and presence of intraventricular hemorrhage (P=0.052). The ICH Score was the sum of individual points assigned as follows: GCS score 3 to 4 (=2 points), 5 to 12 (=1), 13 to 15 (=0); age >/=80 years yes (=1), no (=0); infratentorial origin yes (=1), no (=0); ICH volume >/=30 cm(3) (=1), <30 cm(3) (=0); and intraventricular hemorrhage yes (=1), no (=0). All 26 patients with an ICH Score of 0 survived, and all 6 patients with an ICH Score of 5 died. Thirty-day mortality increased steadily with ICH Score (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The ICH Score is a simple clinical grading scale that allows risk stratification on presentation with ICH. The use of a scale such as the ICH Score could improve standardization of clinical treatment protocols and clinical research studies in ICH.

The heterogeneity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is considered one of the most significant barriers to finding effective therapeutic interventions. In October, 2007, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with support from the Brain Injury Association of America, the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, and the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, convened a workshop to outline the steps needed to develop a reliable, efficient and valid classification system for TBI that could be used to link specific patterns of brain and neurovascular injury with appropriate therapeutic interventions. Currently, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is the primary selection criterion for inclusion in most TBI clinical trials. While the GCS is extremely useful in the clinical management and prognosis of TBI, it does not provide specific information about the pathophysiologic mechanisms which are responsible for neurological deficits and targeted by interventions. On the premise that brain injuries with similar pathoanatomic features are likely to share common pathophysiologic mechanisms, participants proposed that a new, multidimensional classification system should be developed for TBI clinical trials. It was agreed that preclinical models were vital in establishing pathophysiologic mechanisms relevant to specific pathoanatomic types of TBI and verifying that a given therapeutic approach improves outcome in these targeted TBI types. In a clinical trial, patients with the targeted pathoanatomic injury type would be selected using an initial diagnostic entry criterion, including their severity of injury. Coexisting brain injury types would be identified and multivariate prognostic modeling used for refinement of inclusion/exclusion criteria and patient stratification. Outcome assessment would utilize endpoints relevant to the targeted injury type. Advantages and disadvantages of currently available diagnostic, monitoring, and assessment tools were discussed. Recommendations were made for enhancing the utility of available or emerging tools in order to facilitate implementation of a pathoanatomic classification approach for clinical trials.