Article

Placebo-Controlled Trial of Amantadine for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

JFK Johnson Rehabilitation Institute, Edison, NJ, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 03/2012; 366(9):819-26. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102609
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Amantadine hydrochloride is one of the most commonly prescribed medications for patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness after traumatic brain injury. Preliminary studies have suggested that amantadine may promote functional recovery.
We enrolled 184 patients who were in a vegetative or minimally conscious state 4 to 16 weeks after traumatic brain injury and who were receiving inpatient rehabilitation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive amantadine or placebo for 4 weeks and were followed for 2 weeks after the treatment was discontinued. The rate of functional recovery on the Disability Rating Scale (DRS; range, 0 to 29, with higher scores indicating greater disability) was compared over the 4 weeks of treatment (primary outcome) and during the 2-week washout period with the use of mixed-effects regression models.
During the 4-week treatment period, recovery was significantly faster in the amantadine group than in the placebo group, as measured by the DRS score (difference in slope, 0.24 points per week; P=0.007), indicating a benefit with respect to the primary outcome measure. In a prespecified subgroup analysis, the treatment effect was similar for patients in a vegetative state and those in a minimally conscious state. The rate of improvement in the amantadine group slowed during the 2 weeks after treatment (weeks 5 and 6) and was significantly slower than the rate in the placebo group (difference in slope, 0.30 points per week; P=0.02). The overall improvement in DRS scores between baseline and week 6 (2 weeks after treatment was discontinued) was similar in the two groups. There were no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events.
Amantadine accelerated the pace of functional recovery during active treatment in patients with post-traumatic disorders of consciousness. (Funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00970944.).

3 Followers
 · 
286 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS, previously known as vegetative state) occurs after patients survive a severe brain injury. Patients suffering from UWS have lost awareness of themselves and of the external environment and do not retain any trace of their subjective experience. Current data demonstrate that neuronal functions subtending consciousness are not completely reset in UWS; however, they are reduced below the threshold required to experience consciousness. The critical factor that determines whether patients will recover consciousness is the distance of their neuronal functions from this threshold level. Recovery of consciousness occurs through functional and/or structural changes in the brain, i.e., through neuronal plasticity. Although some of these changes may occur spontaneously, a growing body of evidence indicates that rehabilitative interventions can improve functional outcome by promoting adaptive functional and structural plasticity in the brain, especially if evidence from a comprehensive neurophysiological theory of consciousness is followed. In this review we will focus on the pathophysiological mechanisms involved in UWS and on the plastic changes operating on the recovery of consciousness.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 09/2013; 37(10). DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.09.007 · 10.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major worldwide healthcare problem. Despite promising outcomes from many preclinical studies, the failure of several clinical studies to identify effective therapeutic and pharmacological approaches for TBI suggests that methods to improve the translational potential of preclinical studies are highly desirable. Rodent models of TBI are increasingly in demand for preclinical research, particularly for closed head injury (CHI), which mimics the most common type of TBI observed clinically. Although seemingly simple to establish, CHI models are particularly prone to experimental variability. Promisingly, bioengineering-oriented research has advanced our understanding of the nature of the mechanical forces and resulting head and brain motion during TBI. However, many neuroscience-oriented laboratories lack guidance with respect to fundamental biomechanical principles of TBI. Here, we review key historical and current literature that is relevant to the investigation of TBI from clinical, physiological and biomechanical perspectives, and comment on how the current challenges associated with rodent TBI models, particularly those involving CHI, could be improved.
    Disease Models and Mechanisms 09/2013; 6(6). DOI:10.1242/dmm.011320 · 5.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The design of neurorehabilitation therapy to treat subjects with altered consciousness provides opportunities and challenges to professionals involved with the care for these severely ill patients. While there is an increased interest in determining methods to restore consciousness in these patients, the process is complex and challenging, due in part to the diverse aetiology of these states of consciousness, and also to the intricate cerebral connectivity involved in their treatment. The present case study examines a patient who showed signs of emergence from the vegetative state after neurorehabilitation using The Combined Method Therapy (CMT). In this case, neurorehabilitation therapy was applied simultaneously with pharmacological treatment, stimulation, and neuroimaging techniques to help adjust drug dosage. The results of this study suggest that this combined approach to treatment promoted connectivity among posterior and anterior cortical regions aiding emergence from the vegetative state.
    Current pharmaceutical design 09/2013; DOI:10.2174/13816128113196660651 · 3.29 Impact Factor