The Impact of Complementary and Integrative Medicine Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence levels, study characteristics, and outcomes of nonpharmacologic complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) interventions in rehabilitation for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OvidSP), PubMed (NLM), EMBASE ( Embase.com ), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (OvidSP), Cochrane Library (Wiley), and National Guidelines Clearinghouse databases were evaluated using PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered in INPLASY (protocol registration: INPLASY202160071). DATA EXTRACTION: Quantitative studies published between 1992 and 2020 investigating the efficacy of CIM for individuals with TBI of any severity, age, and outcome were included. Special diets, herbal and dietary supplements, and counseling/psychological interventions were excluded, as were studies with mixed samples if TBI data could not be extracted. A 2-level review comprised title/abstract screening, followed by full-text assessment by 2 independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: In total, 90 studies were included, with 57 001 patients in total. This total includes 2 retrospective studies with 17 475 and 37 045 patients. Of the 90 studies, 18 (20%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The remainder included 20 quasi-experimental studies (2-group or 1-group pre/posttreatment comparison), 9 retrospective studies, 1 single-subject study design, 2 mixed-methods designs, and 40 case study/case reports. Guided by the American Academy of Neurology evidence levels, class II criteria were met by 61% of the RCTs. Included studies examined biofeedback/neurofeedback (40%), acupuncture (22%), yoga/tai chi (11%), meditation/mindfulness/relaxation (11%), and chiropractic/osteopathic manipulation (11%). The clinical outcomes evaluated across studies included physical impairments (62%), mental health (49%), cognitive impairments (39%), pain (31%), and activities of daily living/quality of life (28%). Additional descriptive statistics were summarized using narrative synthesis. Of the studies included for analyses, 97% reported overall positive benefits of CIM. CONCLUSION: Rigorous and well experimentally designed studies (including RCTs) are needed to confirm the initial evidence supporting the use of CIM found in the existing literature.

An overview of systematic reviews on the pharmacological randomized controlled trials for reducing intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) examining randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of intracranial pressure (ICP) post-TBI. OBJECTIVES: To summarize pharmacological effectiveness in decreasing ICP in SRs with RCTs and evaluate study quality. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases for English SRs through October 2020. Inclusion criteria were SRs with RCTs that examined pharmacological interventions to treat ICP in patients post-TBI. Data extracted were participant characteristics, pharmacological interventions, and ICP outcomes. Study quality was assessed with AMSTAR-2. RESULTS: Eleven SRs between 2003 and 2020 were included. AMSTAR-2 ratings revealed 3/11 SRs of high quality. Pharmacological interventions included hyperosmolars, neuroprotectives, anesthetics, sedatives, and analgesics. Study samples ranged from 7 to 1282 patients. Hyperosmolar agents and sedatives were beneficial in lowering elevated ICP. High bolus dose opioids had a more deleterious effect on ICP. Neuroprotective agents did not show any effects in ICP management. CONCLUSIONS: RCT sample sizes and findings in the SRs varied. A lack of detailed data syntheses was noted. AMSTAR-2 analysis revealed moderate to high quality in most SRs. Future SRs may focus on streamlined reporting of dosing and clearer clinical recommendations. PROSPERO-Registration: CRD42015017355.

Overview of pharmacological interventions after traumatic brain injuries: impact on selected outcomes.

The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) to appraise the published evidence related to pharmacological interventions after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Searches were conducted with Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed. 780 retrieved SRs underwent a two-level screening to determine inclusion. Data extracted included participant characteristics, TBI severity, study design, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes. SRs were assessed for methodological quality by using the AMSTAR measurement tool. After removing duplicates, 166/780 SRs published between 1990-2017 were reviewed, 62 of which met inclusion criteria. More than 90 drugs and 22 substance-classes were extracted. Most medications were administered during the acute stage. Mild TBI was included in 3% of the SRs. Physiological outcomes comprised 45% of the SRs, primarily mortality. Activities of daily living (ADLs) outcomes constituted 22% of the SRs followed by cognition (13%) and psychological/behavioral outcomes (13%). Only 7% of the SRs assessed adverse events. Inconsistencies in definitions, methods, and heterogeneity of instruments used to measure treatment response were noted. Only a third of the SRs had high methodological quality. Most SRs had heterogeneous TBI samples, outcomes, or methodologies making it difficult to synthesize findings into recommended guidelines. This study demonstrated a need for adequately powered and rigorous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to provide generalizable evidence on the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for TBI. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015017355.

Long-Term Neurobehavioral Symptoms and Return to Productivity in Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom Veterans With and Without Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To describe Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans who underwent the Comprehensive Traumatic Brain Injury Evaluation (CTBIE), differences between the traumatic brain injury (TBI) and non-TBI subgroups, and factors associated with return to productivity (RTP). DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Medical records of OEF/OIF veterans (N=236) who underwent the CTBIE between 2009 and 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic characteristics, injury history, clinical presentation, and factors associated with RTP. RESULTS: Veteran sample included 90.7% men, was 45.3% white and 34.7% black, with half of Hispanic origin, and had a mean age of 33 years. The mean time since injury was approximately 4 years. Reported symptoms were high, with >90% reporting anxiousness, irritability, sleep difficulty, forgetfulness, and headaches. TBI diagnosis was found in 163 veterans (69%). The TBI subgroup was younger (TBI: 32.5y vs non-TBI: 34.9y; P=.02), reported a greater number of injuries (P<.001), and had significantly higher rates of half of the reported symptoms. Greatest differences were noted with forgetfulness (TBI: 95.7% vs non-TBI: 79.5%; P<.001), poor concentration (TBI: 90.2% vs non-TBI: 76.7%; P=.007), and headaches (TBI: 93.9% vs non-TBI: 83.6%; P=.014). RTP was 60.6% for the total veteran population. Factors associated with RTP were race (white) (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-3.55; P=.018), sensitivity to light (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.17-5.66; P=.018), and fatigue (OR, 3.68; 95% CI, 1.51-8.95; P=.004). Veterans that did RTP were 3 times less likely to report depression (OR, .32; 95% CI, .12-.85; P=.022). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans reported a substantial number of lingering symptoms, with a higher prevalence in veterans with TBI. Veterans with reported depression were less likely to RTP. Future research should focus on the relation between depression and non-RTP and the effectiveness of Department of Veterans Affairs services.