Cerebrolysin after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: prospective meta-analysis of the CAPTAIN trial series.

INTRODUCTION: This prospective meta-analysis summarizes results from the CAPTAIN trial series, evaluating the effects of Cerebrolysin for moderate-severe traumatic brain injury, as an add-on to usual care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included two phase IIIb/IV prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Eligible patients with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) between 6 and 12 received study medication (50 mL of Cerebrolysin or physiological saline solution per day for ten days, followed by two additional treatment cycles with 10 mL per day for 10 days) in addition to usual care. The meta-analysis comprises the primary ensembles of efficacy criteria for 90, 30, and 10 days after TBI with a priori ordered hypotheses based on multivariate, directional tests. RESULTS: A total 185 patients underwent meta-analysis (mean admission GCS = 10.3, mean age = 45.3, and mean Baseline Prognostic Risk Score = 2.8). The primary endpoint, a multidimensional ensemble of functional and neuropsychological outcome scales indicated a "small-to-medium" sized effect in favor of Cerebrolysin, statistically significant at Day 30 and at Day 90 (Day 30: MWcombined = 0.60, 95%CI 0.52 to 0.66, p = 0.0156; SMD = 0.31; OR = 1.69; Day 90: MWcombined = 0.60, 95%CI 0.52 to 0.68, p = 0.0146; SMD = 0.34, OR = 1.77). Treatment groups showed comparable safety and tolerability profiles. DISCUSSION: The meta-analysis of the CAPTAIN trials confirms the safety and efficacy of Cerebrolysin after moderate-severe TBI, opening a new horizon for neurorecovery in this field. Integration of Cerebrolysin into existing guidelines should be considered after careful review of internationally applicable criteria.

A retrospective, multi-center cohort study evaluating the severity- related effects of cerebrolysin treatment on clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability for which there is currently no effective drug therapy available. Because drugs targeting a single TBI pathological pathway have failed to show clinical efficacy to date, pleiotropic agents with effects on multiple mechanisms of secondary brain damage could represent an effective option to improve brain recovery and clinical outcome in TBI patients. In this multicenter retrospective study, we investigated severity-related efficacy and safety of the add-on therapy with two concentrations (20 ml/day or 30 ml/day) of Cerebrolysin (EVER Neuro Pharma, Austria) in TBI patients. Adjunctive treatment with Cerrebrolysin started within 48 hours after TBI and clinical outcomes were ranked according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Modified Rankin Disability Score at 10 and 30 days post-TBI. Analyses of efficacy were performed separately for subgroups of patients with mild, moderate or severe TBI according to Glasgow Coma Scale scores at admission. Compared to standard medical care alone (control group), both doses of Cerebrolysin were associated with improved clinical outcome scores at 10 days post-TBI in mild patients and at 10 and 30 days in moderate and severe cases. A dose-dependent effect of Cerebrolysin on TBI recovery was supported by the dose-related differences and the significant correlations with treatment duration observed for outcome measures. The safety and tolerability of Cerebrolysin in TBI patients was very good. In conclusion, the results of this large retrospective study revealed that early Cerebrolysin treatment is safe and is associated to improved TBI outcome.

Towards a roadmap in brain protection and recovery.

This article briefly reviews some of the mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of neurological diseases, i.e. damage mechanisms (DM), and their interactions and overlap with protection and reparatory processes (i.e. endogenous defence activities). A relationship between DM and endogenous defence activity (EDA) regarding therapy principles will also be described. Currently, it is difficult to find the correct therapeutic approach for brain protection and recovery, especially because we do not fully understand all of the endogenous neurobiological processes, the complete nature of the pathophysiological mechanisms and the links between these two categories. Moreover, we continue to use a simplistic and reductionist approach in this respect. Endogenous neurobiological processes, such as neurotrophicity, neuroprotection, neuroplasticity and neurogenesis, are central to protection and recovery and represent the background of EDA. The biological reality of the nervous system is far more complex. In fact, there is an endogenous holistic process of neuroprotection and neurorecovery that should be approached therapeutically in an integrated way. The current tendency to exclusively frame drug activity in terms of single mechanisms and single focus effect might distract from other paradigms with greater explanatory power and hinder the development of more effective treatment strategies. A change of concept is required in pharmacological brain protection and recovery. Prospective considerations include an integrated pharmacological approach, focusing on drugs with multimodal activity and pleiotropic neuroprotective effect which are biological drugs, rather than single mechanism drugs, which usually are chemical drugs.