Corticosteroids in head injury--the CRASH trial

Giving Patients Choices During Involuntary Admission: A New Intervention

Background: People who receive involuntary treatment are some of the most vulnerable in psychiatric services. They are more likely to have poorer social and clinical outcomes and to be disillusioned with and disengaged from care. Research indicates that patients' experience in the first week of involuntary treatment is a critical period: a better experience of care in the first week predicts better quality of life and reduced readmission 1 year later. Patients have identified involvement in clinical decisions as key to improving their experience of care. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention to facilitate involvement in decision making for involuntary inpatients called OPeNS (Options, Preferences, Negotiate, and Summarise). Methods: This was a mixed method study. The OPeNS intervention was developed based on previous research carried out by a multidisciplinary team. Clinicians were trained to deliver it to involuntary inpatients. Feasibility indices (rates of participation in the intervention and time required to deliver it) were collected. Patients (N = 14) and clinicians (N = 5) provided qualitative data on their experience of the intervention in semi-structured interviews which were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The OPeNS intervention was found to be acceptable by both patients and clinicians and feasible to conduct within the first week of involuntary treatment. Patients' and clinicians' experiences of the intervention fall into two themes: 'Enabling a different dynamic' and 'Clashing with usual practices and priorities'. Conclusion: The OPeNS intervention provides a structure that can be used by clinicians across disciplines to facilitate involving involuntary patients in decision making. Although challenges related to changing usual practices were identified, the intervention was received positively and was feasible to conduct in the first week of involuntary treatment.

Role of biological modifiers regulating the immune response after trauma

Trauma induces a profound immunological dysfunction. This is characterised by an early state of hyperinflammation, followed by a phase of immunosuppression with increased susceptibility to infection and multiple organ failure. Therapeutic strategies directed at restoring immune homeostasis after traumatic injuries have largely failed in translation from "bench to bedside". The present review illustrates the role of biological modifiers of the posttraumatic immune response by portraying different modalities of therapeutic immune modulation. The emphasis is placed on anti-inflammatory (steroids) and immune-stimulatory (interferon) pharmacological strategies and modified resuscitative strategies, as well as more unconventional immunomodulatory approaches, such as immunonutrition.

Young men were at risk of becoming lost to follow-up in a cohort of head-injured adults

OBJECTIVE

This study is to identify predictors of loss to follow-up among adults with head injury.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A prospective cohort of 1,857 adults enrolled in the Medical Research Council (MRC) CRASH trial known to be alive 2 weeks after head injury. Six-month follow-up was defined as "overdue" if over 6 months late. Patient information collected at enrollment and after 14 days was used to predict overdue follow-up. A random two-thirds of the cohort was analyzed using logistic regression and binary recursive partitioning. The regression model and decision rule derived by recursive partitioning were evaluated using the remaining third.

RESULTS

Overdue follow-up was more likely in patients aged 25-34 years (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18-2.62), victims of assault (1.63; 1.09-2.45), patients independent after 2 weeks (1.79; 1.18-2.72) and patients for whom postcodes (2.36; 1.65-3.39), telephone numbers (1.82; 1.19-2.79) or general practitioners (1.67; 1.16-2.39) were unknown. Binary recursive partitioning specifically identified males aged younger than 43 years to be at risk.

CONCLUSION

Successful follow-up in head-injury studies requires patients' postcodes and telephone numbers to be available. Young men remain at risk of becoming lost to follow-up, presenting a challenge for researchers aiming for complete data.

Follow-up by mail in clinical trials: does questionnaire length matter?

In large clinical trials where outcome assessment is possible using questionnaires, it may be more cost-effective to mail them to patients than to conduct interviews in-person. However, nonresponse to mailed questionnaires reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of questionnaire length on response rates. We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases, the reference lists of relevant trials, and we contacted the authors of eligible trials to ask about unpublished data. For each trial identified, we used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio for response per one page increase in the number of pages included in the questionnaire. We pooled the regression coefficients in a random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity among the coefficients was assessed using a chi-square test at a 5% significance level. We specified a priori that the reduction in the odds of response per one page increase would be greatest among trials comparing relatively short questionnaires. We used meta regression to examine the relationships between the regression coefficients, the length of the questionnaires used in each trial, and other study characteristics. A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified where participants were allocated to questionnaires of differing lengths and where the number of pages used was known. There was significant heterogeneity between the regression coefficients estimated from each trial. In meta regression, most of the heterogeneity was explained by variation in the length of the questionnaires used in each trial. Among trials in which the shortest questionnaire was a postcard, the odds of response were more than halved for each additional page used (0.39; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.45). In the remaining trials, pooled effect sizes were much smaller. In trials of one page compared with either two or three pages, the odds of response per one page increase was 1.01 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.24). For one page compared with four or more pages, and for two or more pages compared with longer alternatives, the odds ratios per one page increase were 0.90 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.98) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99), respectively. There were no statistically significant associations between trial results and other study characteristics. It appears that response can be increased by using a shorter questionnaire. Moderate changes to the length of shorter questionnaires will be more effective than moderate changes to the length of longer questionnaires. If a choice of follow-up questionnaire exists for a clinical trial, the shorter one should be used. If a new follow-up questionnaire is to be designed, it should be made as short as possible without compromising the data collection requirements of the trial.

Update on progress in the international, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids after significant head injury (Medical Research Council CRASH Trial)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an update on the progress of the multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids after significant head injury (CRASH).

RECENT FINDINGS

After a successful pilot phase, the main phase of the CRASH Trial began in March 2001. By June 2002, 107 hospitals from 31 countries were participating in the trial, and together had recruited 3000 patients. Nine hundred patients (30%) had mild head injury, 885 (30%) had moderate head injury, and 1215 (40%) had severe head injury. A total of 1941 (65%) patients were randomized within 3 hours of injury. Outcome at 2 weeks from injury was known for 2933 (98%) patients, of whom 557 (19%) died. At the time of writing, 6-month follow-up for the first 1500 patients was nearly complete. Vital status was known for 1429 (95%) of the 1500 patients, of whom 313 (22%) had died. Functional status based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale was known for 1391 (93%) of the 1500 patients: 22% were dead, 16% were severely disabled, 23% were moderately disabled, and 39% had made a good recovery.

SUMMARY

The CRASH Trial is a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of a 48-hour corticosteroid infusion after significant head injury and is now the largest head injury trial ever conducted. The efforts of the national coordinators have shown that it is possible to enroll and follow up very large numbers of head-injured patients.

The MRC CRASH Trial: study design, baseline data, and outcome in 1000 randomised patients in the pilot phase

OBJECTIVES

To test the design and feasibility of a large scale multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a high dose corticosteroid infusion after head injury. To assess whether large numbers of patients could be enrolled and treated within eight hours from injury and then followed up at six months.

METHODS

Randomised placebo controlled multicentre trial of a 48 hour corticosteroid infusion after significant head injury. All head injured adults who were observed while in hospital to have GCS of 14 or less (out of a maximum score of 15), and who were within eight hours of the injury, were eligible for trial entry. Analysis of baseline and outcome data (for both treatment groups combined) for 1000 patients enrolled in the pilot phase of the MRC CRASH Trial.

RESULTS

Fifty two hospitals in 14 countries participated in the pilot phase, recruiting an average of one patient per hospital per month. Of the 1000 randomised patients, 330 (33%) had mild head injury, 289 (29%) had moderate head injury, and 381 (38%) had severe head injury. Seven hundred and nine (71%) patients were randomised within three hours of injury. Outcome at two weeks from injury was known for 991 (99%) patients, of whom 170 (17%) patients died. At the time of writing, six month follow up for the first 500 patients was nearly complete. Vital status was known for 465 (93%) of the 500 patients, of whom 97 (21%) had died. Functional status based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale was known for 438 (88%) of the 500 patients: 21% were dead, 17% were severely disabled, 22% were moderately disabled, and 34% had made a good recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial procedures proved practicable and a wide variety of patients were recruited in the emergency department within eight hours of injury. Using simple outcome measures, large numbers of patients can be successfully followed up.

Reliability of postal questionnaires for the Glasgow Outcome Scale

The purpose of the study was to investigate if a questionnaire sent by mail can give a reliable assessment of outcome on the Glasgow Outcome Scale. A questionnaire was developed for the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) and a second questionnaire for the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE). The questionnaires were self-contained and designed to be completed by either a head-injured person or a proxy. The questionnaires were studied in two ways: each questionnaire was administered twice (at an interval of approximately 2 weeks), and ratings from the postal questionnaires were compared to ratings from a structured interview conducted by telephone. The four studies were carried out in separate groups of head-injured participants consisting of 32-38 individuals. For the test-retest comparison, k(w) (quadratic weights) was 0.94 for the GOS questionnaire and 0.98 for the GOSE questionnaire. For the comparison with the telephone interview, k(w) was 0.67 for the GOS and 0.92 for the GOSE. The values of k(w) indicate good agreement for all comparisons. We conclude that it is possible to obtain reliable outcome data after head injury using postal questionnaires.

Medical research in clinical emergency settings in Europe

Clinical emergencies necessitate immediate action to avert the danger to the patient's life or health. Emergency patients might be in greatest need of novel therapies, and even presumed willing to assume some risk, but research into emergency conditions should be conducted under commonly accepted principles that fulfil the scientific, ethical, and legal criteria. Such criteria already exist in the US, but are still under development in Europe. This article introduces criteria upon which trials in emergency settings may be ethically and legally justified in Europe. Based on both legal texts and professional guidelines, the author has established seven conditions for emergency research, of which informed consent and its substitutes, as well as the conditions of direct benefit requirement and necessity, are considered most problematic and therefore analysed more closely. Other conditions include absence of alternative methods, scientific validity, and approval by an ethics committee.

[First tier measures in the treatment of intracranial hypertension in the patient with severe craniocerebral trauma. Proposal and justification of a protocol]

The management of severe head injuries in general and that of high intracranial pressure (ICP) in particular are among the most challenging tasks in neurocritical care. One of the difficulties still faced by clinicians is that of reducing variability among centers when implementing management protocols. The purpose of this paper is to propose a standardized protocol for the management of high ICP after severe head injury, consistent with recently published clinical practice guidelines and other clinical evidence such as that provided by the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration. Despite significant advances in neuromonitoring, deeper insight into the physiopathology of severe brain trauma and the many therapeutic options available, standardized protocols are still lacking. Recently published guidelines provide sketchy recommendations without details on how and when to apply different therapies. Consequently, great variability exists in daily clinical practice even though different centers apply the same evidence-based recommendations. In this paper we suggest a structured protocol in which each step is justified and integrated into an overall strategy for the management of severe head injuries. The most recent data from both the preliminary and definitive results of randomized clinical trials as well as from other sources are discussed. The main goal of this article is to provide neurotraumatology intensive care units with a unified protocol that can be easily modified as new evidence becomes available. This will reduce variation among centers when applying the same therapeutic measures. This goal will facilitate comparisons in outcomes among different centers and will also enable the implementation of more consistent clinical practice in centers involved in multicenter clinical trials.

Methylprednisolone and acute spinal cord injury: an update of the randomized evidence

OBJECTIVES

Randomized trials are widely recognized as providing the most reliable evidence for assessing efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions. This evidence base is used to evaluate the current status of methylprednisolone (MPSS) in the early treatment of acute spinal cord injury.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, and other specified databases were searched for MeSH headings "methylprednisolone and acute spinal cord injury." The Cochrane Library and an existing systematic review on the topic were also searched.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were identified that evaluated high-dose MPSS for acute spinal cord injury. Three trials by the NASCIS group were of high methodologic quality, and a Japanese and French trial of moderate to low, methodologic quality. Meta-analysis of the final result of three trials comparing 24-hour high-dose MPSS with placebo or no therapy indicates an average unilateral 4.1 motor function score improvement (95% confidence interval 0.6-7.6, P = 0.02) in patients treated with MPSS. This neurologic recovery is likely to be correlated with improved functional recovery in some patients. The safety of this regimen of MPSS is evident from the spinal cord injury trials and a systematic review of 51 surgical trials of high-dose MPSS.

CONCLUSION

High-dose MPSS given within 8 hours of acute spinal cord injury is a safe and modestly effective therapy that may result in important clinical recovery for some patients. Further trials are needed to identify superior pharmacologic therapies and to test drugs that may sequentially influence the postinjury cascade.

The problem of informed consent in emergency medicine research

The CRASH Trial (Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head injury), which started in April 1999 hopes to answer the question of whether or not there is any benefit to giving high dose corticosteroids after significant head injuries. To do this patients are randomised to receive either the standard care for head injuries, as defined by the receiving hospital, or standard care plus a 48 hour infusion of corticosteroids. This is to be started within eight hours of injury, preferably as soon as possible. As all eligible patients will have a reduced level of consciousness informed consent has been deemed unnecessary. In this review the issue of consent in human experimentation is presented with a special emphasis on the problems faced in emergency medicine research, and the way these have been tackled.

What works in severe head injury?

Traumatic brain injury has an important socioeconomic impact in industrialized countries. However, well-conducted clinical trials are rare. Case-control studies have shown that prevention works. Pathophysiological understanding is becoming more complete as data on chemokines, local brain tissue oxygen tension and hypothermia accumulate. Multimodality monitoring will certainly assume greater importance in the future. Research with targeted therapeutic strategies indicates that secondary ischaemic insults can be prevented. Specific subgroups of patients with traumatic brain injury who will benefit from the use of hypothermia and barbiturates have been identified. Enteral feeding is the preferred nutritional strategy, and the follow-up period should be extended beyond the traditional 1 year.

Neurocritical care and traumatic brain injury

The majority of severely head injured children will not require neurosurgery. For the pediatrician, the central question must be whether medical interventions are effective in limiting morbidity and treating the problem of cerebral oedema. However, in order to address this issue we need to give some thought to the system of care in which we practice, how we assess the severity of brain injury and whether, in regard to pathophysiology, responses in children are significantly different from those seen in adults. In this regard, this review highlights some of the recent pediatric neurocritical care literature and provides, for the clinician, a framework on which to base ones medical management of severe traumatic brain injury occurring in childhood.

Neurological critical care

Of utmost importance in the practice of neurological critical care is the treatment of cerebral edema, when possible, and the control of life-threatening seizures. In this regard, severe traumatic head injury and refractory status epilepticus are useful clinical therapeutic paradigms. Evidence-based treatment established for these conditions has, by necessity, a wider application to other much less frequent causes of coma and acute neurological illness managed in the intensive therapy unit. Therefore, this review of pediatric neurocritical care literature in 1999 highlights central clinical reports of the medical management of severe traumatic brain injury, the benzodiazepines used in the treatment of status epilepticus, and the emerging or recently appreciated encephalopathies occurring in children.

Size and quality of randomised controlled trials in head injury: review of published studies

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether trials in head injury are large enough to avoid moderate random errors and designed to avoid moderate biases.

DESIGN

All randomised controlled trials on the treatment and rehabilitation of patients with head injury published before December 1998 were surveyed. Trials were identified from electronic databases, by hand searching journals and conference proceedings, and by contacting researchers. Data were extracted on the number of participants, quality of concealment of allocation, use of blinding, loss to follow up, and types of participants, interventions, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

279 reports were identified, containing information on 208 separate trials. The average number of participants per trial was 82, with no evidence of increasing size over time. The total number of randomised participants in the 203 trials in which size was reported was 16 613. No trials were large enough to detect reliably a 5% absolute reduction in the risk of death or disability, and only 4% were large enough to detect an absolute reduction of 10%. Concealment of allocation was adequate in 22 and inadequate or unclear in 25 of the 47 (23%) in which it was reported. Of 126 trials assessing disability, 111 reported the number of patients followed up, and average loss to follow up was 19%. Of trials measuring disability, 26 (21%) reported that outcome assessors were blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomised trials in head injury are too small and poorly designed to detect or refute reliably moderate but clinically important benefits or hazards of treatment. Limited funding for injury research and unfamiliarity with issues of consent may have been important obstacles.

Clinical measurement, statistical analysis, and risk-benefit: controversies from trials of spinal injury

BACKGROUND

The National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Studies have been a series of trials assessing the role of pharmacologic agents in the prevention of secondary neuronal damage after acute spinal cord injury.

METHODS

The trials were multicenter randomized, controlled studies.

RESULTS

Two trials have demonstrated the efficacy of high-dose methylprednisolone in improving neurologic and functional recovery and have shown a reassuring safety profile.

CONCLUSION

This study responds to a recent commentary on these trials and examines in particular the roles of clinical measurement, statistical analysis, and risk benefit in assembling evidence for or against innovative therapies.