Suchergebnisse

Background: The burden of traumatic brain injury (TBI) poses a large public health and societal problem, but the characteristics of patients and their care pathways in Europe are poorly understood. We aimed to characterise patient case-mix, care pathways, and outcomes of TBI. Methods: CENTER-TBI is a Europe-based, observational cohort study, consisting of a core study and a registry. Inclusion criteria for the core study were a clinical diagnosis of TBI, presentation fewer than 24 h after injury, and an indication for CT. Patients were differentiated by care pathway and assigned to the emergency room (ER) stratum (patients who were discharged from an emergency room), admission stratum (patients who were admitted to a hospital ward), or intensive care unit (ICU) stratum (patients who were admitted to the ICU). Neuroimages and biospecimens were stored in repositories and outcome was assessed at 6 months after injury. We used the IMPACT core model for estimating the expected mortality and proportion with unfavourable Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) outcomes in patients with moderate or severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score ≤12). The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, and with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582). Findings: Data from 4509 patients from 18 countries, collected between Dec 9, 2014, and Dec 17, 2017, were analysed in the core study and from 22 782 patients in the registry. In the core study, 848 (19%) patients were in the ER stratum, 1523 (34%) in the admission stratum, and 2138 (47%) in the ICU stratum. In the ICU stratum, 720 (36%) patients had mild TBI (GCS score 13–15). Compared with the core cohort, the registry had a higher proportion of patients in the ER (9839 [43%]) and admission (8571 [38%]) strata, with more than 95% of patients classified as having mild TBI. Patients in the core study were older than those in previous studies (median age 50 years [IQR 30–66], 1254 [28%] aged >65 years), 462 (11%) had serious comorbidities, 772 (18%) were taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication, and alcohol was contributory in 1054 (25%) TBIs. MRI and blood biomarker measurement enhanced characterisation of injury severity and type. Substantial inter-country differences existed in care pathways and practice. Incomplete recovery at 6 months (GOSE <8) was found in 207 (30%) patients in the ER stratum, 665 (53%) in the admission stratum, and 1547 (84%) in the ICU stratum. Among patients with moderate-to-severe TBI in the ICU stratum, 623 (55%) patients had unfavourable outcome at 6 months (GOSE <5), similar to the proportion predicted by the IMPACT prognostic model (observed to expected ratio 1·06 [95% CI 0·97–1·14]), but mortality was lower than expected (0·70 [0·62–0·76]). Interpretation: Patients with TBI who presented to European centres in the core study were older than were those in previous observational studies and often had comorbidities. Overall, most patients presented with mild TBI. The incomplete recovery of many patients should motivate precision medicine research and the identification of best practices to improve these outcomes. Funding: European Union 7th Framework Programme, the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung, OneMind, and Integra LifeSciences Corporation.nd outcomes of TBI.

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. ; Peer reviewed

Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. ; Peer reviewed

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.

Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice. Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries. Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%). Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.