Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global public health burden, where those injured by high-energy transfer (e.g., road traffic collisions) are assumed to have more severe injury and are prioritised by emergency medical service trauma triage tools. However recent studies suggest an increasing TBI disease burden in older people injured through low-energy falls. We aimed to assess the prevalence of low-energy falls among patients presenting to hospital with TBI, and to compare their characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes to TBI caused by high-energy trauma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a comparative cohort study utilising the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) Registry, which recorded patient demographics, injury, care pathway, and acute care outcome data in 56 acute trauma receiving hospitals across 18 countries (17 countries in Europe and Israel). Patients presenting with TBI and indications for computed tomography (CT) brain scan between 2014 to 2018 were purposively sampled. The main study outcomes were (i) the prevalence of low-energy falls causing TBI within the overall cohort and (ii) comparisons of TBI patients injured by low-energy falls to TBI patients injured by high-energy transfer-in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, care pathways, and hospital mortality. In total, 22,782 eligible patients were enrolled, and study outcomes were analysed for 21,681 TBI patients with known injury mechanism; 40% (95% CI 39% to 41%) (8,622/21,681) of patients with TBI were injured by low-energy falls. Compared to 13,059 patients injured by high-energy transfer (HE cohort), the those injured through low-energy falls (LE cohort) were older (LE cohort, median 74 [IQR 56 to 84] years, versus HE cohort, median 42 [IQR 25 to 60] years; p < 0.001), more often female (LE cohort, 50% [95% CI 48% to 51%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001), more frequently taking pre-injury anticoagulants or/and platelet aggregation inhibitors (LE cohort, 44% [95% CI 42% to 45%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 11% to 14%]; p < 0.001), and less often presenting with moderately or severely impaired conscious level (LE cohort, 7.8% [95% CI 5.6% to 9.8%], versus HE cohort, 10% [95% CI 8.7% to 12%]; p < 0.001), but had similar in-hospital mortality (LE cohort, 6.3% [95% CI 4.2% to 8.3%], versus HE cohort, 7.0% [95% CI 5.3% to 8.6%]; p = 0.83). The CT brain scan traumatic abnormality rate was 3% lower in the LE cohort (LE cohort, 29% [95% CI 27% to 31%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001); individuals in the LE cohort were 50% less likely to receive critical care (LE cohort, 12% [95% CI 9.5% to 13%], versus HE cohort, 24% [95% CI 23% to 26%]; p < 0.001) or emergency interventions (LE cohort, 7.5% [95% CI 5.4% to 9.5%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 12% to 15%]; p < 0.001) than patients injured by high-energy transfer. The purposive sampling strategy and censorship of patient outcomes beyond hospital discharge are the main study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls are an important component of the TBI disease burden and a distinct demographic cohort; further, our findings suggest that energy transfer may not predict intracranial injury or acute care mortality in patients with TBI presenting to hospital. This suggests that factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people. A specific focus to improve prevention and care for patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls is required. ; CENTER-TBI was supported by the European Union 7th Framework program (EC grant 602150), recipient A.I.R. Maas. Additional funding was obtained from the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany) - recipient A.I.R. Maas, from OneMind (USA) - recipient A.I.R. Maas and from Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA) - recipient A.I.R. Maas. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is a major cause of death and severe disability worldwide with 1,000,000 hospital admissions per annum throughout the European Union.Therapeutic hypothermia to reduce intracranial hypertension may improve patient outcome but key issues are length of hypothermia treatment and speed of re-warming. A recent meta-analysis showed improved outcome when hypothermia was continued for between 48 hours and 5 days and patients were re-warmed slowly (1 °C/4 hours). Previous experience with cooling also appears to be important if complications, which may outweigh the benefits of hypothermia, are to be avoided. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial examining the effects of hypothermia 32-35 °C, titrated to reduce intracranial pressure 20 mmHg in accordance with the Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines, 2007. DISCUSSION: The Eurotherm3235Trial is the most important clinical trial in critical care ever conceived by European intensive care medicine, because it was launched and funded by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and will be the largest non-commercial randomised controlled trial due to the substantial number of centres required to deliver the target number of patients. It represents a new and fundamental step for intensive care medicine in Europe. Recruitment will continue until January 2013 and interested clinicians from intensive care units worldwide can still join this important collaboration by contacting the Trial Coordinating Team via the trial website http://www.eurotherm3235trial.eu. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34555414.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand the relationship between serum biomarker concentration and lesion type and volume found on computed tomography (CT) following all severities of TBI. METHODS: Concentrations of six serum biomarkers (GFAP, NFL, NSE, S100B, t-tau and UCH-L1) were measured in samples obtained <24 hours post-injury from 2869 patients with all severities of TBI, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI prospective cohort study (NCT02210221). Imaging phenotypes were defined as intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH), oedema, subdural haematoma (SDH), extradural haematoma (EDH), traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (tSAH), diffuse axonal injury (DAI), and intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH). Multivariable polynomial regression was performed to examine the association between biomarker levels and both distinct lesion types and lesion volumes. Hierarchical clustering was used to explore imaging phenotypes; and principal component analysis and k-means clustering of acute biomarker concentrations to explore patterns of biomarker clustering. FINDINGS: 2869 patient were included, 68% (n=1946) male with a median age of 49 years (range 2-96). All severities of TBI (mild, moderate and severe) were included for analysis with majority (n=1946, 68%) having a mild injury (GCS 13-15). Patients with severe diffuse injury (Marshall III/IV) showed significantly higher levels of all measured biomarkers, with the exception of NFL, than patients with focal mass lesions (Marshall grades V/VI). Patients with either DAI+IVH or SDH+IPH+tSAH, had significantly higher biomarker concentrations than patients with EDH. Higher biomarker concentrations were associated with greater volume of IPH (GFAP, S100B, t-tau;adj r2 range:0·48-0·49; p<0·05), oedema (GFAP, NFL, NSE, t-tau, UCH-L1;adj r2 range:0·44-0·44; p<0·01), IVH (S100B;adj r2 range:0.48-0.49; p<0.05), Unsupervised k-means biomarker clustering revealed two clusters explaining 83·9% of variance, with phenotyping characteristics related to clinical injury severity. INTERPRETATION: Interpretation: Biomarker concentration within 24 hours of TBI is primarily related to severity of injury and intracranial disease burden, rather than pathoanatomical type of injury. FUNDING: CENTER-TBI is funded by the European Union 7th Framework programme (EC grant 602150).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand the relationship between serum biomarker concentration and lesion type and volume found on computed tomography (CT) following all severities of TBI. METHODS: Concentrations of six serum biomarkers (GFAP, NFL, NSE, S100B, t-tau and UCH-L1) were measured in samples obtained <24 hours post-injury from 2869 patients with all severities of TBI, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI prospective cohort study (NCT02210221). Imaging phenotypes were defined as intraparenchymal haemorrhage (IPH), oedema, subdural haematoma (SDH), extradural haematoma (EDH), traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage (tSAH), diffuse axonal injury (DAI), and intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH). Multivariable polynomial regression was performed to examine the association between biomarker levels and both distinct lesion types and lesion volumes. Hierarchical clustering was used to explore imaging phenotypes; and principal component analysis and k-means clustering of acute biomarker concentrations to explore patterns of biomarker clustering. FINDINGS: 2869 patient were included, 68% (n=1946) male with a median age of 49 years (range 2-96). All severities of TBI (mild, moderate and severe) were included for analysis with majority (n=1946, 68%) having a mild injury (GCS 13-15). Patients with severe diffuse injury (Marshall III/IV) showed significantly higher levels of all measured biomarkers, with the exception of NFL, than patients with focal mass lesions (Marshall grades V/VI). Patients with either DAI+IVH or SDH+IPH+tSAH, had significantly higher biomarker concentrations than patients with EDH. Higher biomarker concentrations were associated with greater volume of IPH (GFAP, S100B, t-tau;adj r2 range:0·48-0·49; p<0·05), oedema (GFAP, NFL, NSE, t-tau, UCH-L1;adj r2 range:0·44-0·44; p<0·01), IVH (S100B;adj r2 range:0.48-0.49; p<0.05), Unsupervised k-means biomarker clustering revealed two clusters explaining 83·9% of variance, with phenotyping characteristics related to clinical injury severity. INTERPRETATION: Interpretation: Biomarker concentration within 24 hours of TBI is primarily related to severity of injury and intracranial disease burden, rather than pathoanatomical type of injury. FUNDING: CENTER-TBI is funded by the European Union 7th Framework programme (EC grant 602150).

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. ; European Union 7th Framework program (EC grant 602150) with additional support from the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany), from OneMind (USA) and from Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA).

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide, especially in children and young adults. TBI is an example of a medical condition where there are still major lacks in diagnostics and outcome prediction. Here we apply comprehensive metabolic profiling of serum samples from TBI patients and controls in two independent cohorts. The discovery study included 144 TBI patients, with the samples taken at the time of hospitalization. The patients were diagnosed as severe (sTBI; n=22), moderate (moTBI; n=14) or mild TBI (mTBI; n=108) according to Glasgow Coma Scale. The control group (n=28) comprised of acute orthopedic non-brain injuries. The validation study included sTBI (n=23), moTBI (n=7), mTBI (n=37) patients and controls (n=27). We show that two medium-chain fatty acids (decanoic and octanoic acids) and sugar derivatives including 2,3-bisphosphoglyceric acid are strongly associated with severity of TBI, and most of them are also detected at high concentrations in brain microdialysates of TBI patients. Based on metabolite concentrations from TBI patients at the time of hospitalization, an algorithm was developed that accurately predicted the patient outcomes (AUC=0.84 in validation cohort). Addition of the metabolites to the established clinical model (CRASH), comprising clinical and computed tomography data, significantly improved prediction of patient outcomes. The identified 'TBI metabotype' in serum, that may be indicative of disrupted blood-brain barrier, of protective physiological response and altered metabolism due to head trauma, offers a new avenue for the development of diagnostic and prognostic markers of broad spectrum of TBIs. ; European Union FP7 project TBIcare (Grant ID: 270259), GE-NFL Head Health Challenge I Award (Grant ID: 7620), EVO (Finland), Maire Taponen Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge (Neuroscience Theme; Brain Injury and Repair Theme) ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.07.015