Hereinafter, we evaluate argon's neuroprotective and immunomodulatory properties after experimental subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) examining various localizations (hippocampal and cortical regions) with respect to neuronal damage and microglial activation 6, 24 and 72 hours after SAH. One hour after SAH (endovascular perforation rat model) or sham surgery, a mixture of gas containing 50% argon (argon group) or 50% nitrogen (control group) was applied for 1 hour. At 6 hours after SAH, argon reduced neuronal damage in the hippocampal regions in the argon group compared to the control group (P < 0.034). Hippocampal microglial activation did not differ between the treatment groups over time. The basal cortical regions did not show a different lesion pattern, but microglial activation was significantly reduced in the argon group 72 hours after SAH (P = 0.034 vs. control group). Whereas callosal microglial activation was significantly reduced at 24 hours in the argon-treated group (P = 0.018). Argon treatment ameliorated only early hippocampal neuronal damage after SAH. Inhibition of microglial activation was seen in some areas later on. Thus, argon may influence the microglial inflammatory response and neuronal survival after SAH; however, due to low sample sizes the interpretation of our results is limited. The study protocol was approved by the Government Agency for Animal Use and Protection (Protocol number: TVA 10416G1; initially approved by the "Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz NRW," Recklinghausen, Germany, on April 28, 2009).
In: Timmers , M , Van Dijck , J T J M , Van Wijk , R P J , Legrand , V , Van Veen , E , Maas , A I R , Menon , D K , Citerio , G , Stocchetti , N , Kompanje , E J O , Åkerlund , C , Amrein , K , Andelic , N , Andreassen , L , Anke , A , Antoni , A , Audibert , G , Azouvi , P , Azzolini , M L , Bartels , R , Barzó , P , Beauvais , R , Beer , R , Bellander , B M , Belli , A , Benali , H , Berardino , M , Beretta , L , Blaabjerg , M , Bragge , P , Brazinova , A , Brinck , V , Brooker , J , Brorsson , C , Buki , A , Bullinger , M , Cabeleira , M , Caccioppola , A , Calappi , E , Calvi , M R , Cameron , P , Lozano , G C , Carbonara , M , Cavallo , S , Chevallard , G , Chieregato , A , Ceyisakar , I , Coburn , M , Coles , J , Kondziella , D & The CENTER-TBI investigators and participants 2020 , ' How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study ' , BMC Medical Ethics , vol. 21 , no. 1 , 36 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00480-8
Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
Abstract: Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.