Neuroprotection in traumatic brain injury: a complex struggle against the biology of nature
Abstract
Purpose of review Translating the efficacy of neuroprotective agents in experimental traumatic brain injury to clinical benefit has proven an extremely complex and, to date, unsuccessful undertaking. The focus of this review is on neuroprotective agents that have recently been evaluated in clinical trials and are currently under clinical evaluation, as well as on those that appear promising and are likely to undergo clinical evaluation in the near future. Recent findings Excitatory neurotransmitter blockage and magnesium have recently been evaluated in phase III clinical trials, but showed no neuroprotective efficacy. Cyclosporin A, erythropoietin, progesterone and bradykinin antagonists are currently under clinical investigation, and appear promising. Summary Traumatic brain injury is a complex disease, and development of clinically effective neuroprotective agents is a difficult task. Experimental traumatic brain injury has provided numerous promising compounds, but to date these have not been translated into successful clinical trials. Continued research efforts are required to identify and test new neuroprotective agents, to develop a better understanding of the sequential activity of pathophysiologic mechanisms, and to improve the design and analysis of clinical trials, thereby optimizing chances for showing benefit in future clinical trials.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
More than 30 phase-III clinical trials have failed to improve secondary injury outcome measures after TBI despite preclinical evidence for successful pharmacologic intervention.
“Despite preclinical studies providing evidence for successful pharmacologic intervention, more than 30 phase-III clinical trials have failed to improve secondary injury outcome measures after TBI (35–37).”
From The Inflammatory Continuum of Traumatic Brain Injury and Alzheimer’s Disease (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
Cites
Clinical trials in head injury
Narayan, R. K., Michel, M. E., Ansell, B., Baethmann, A., Biegon, A., Bracken, M. B., Bullock, M. R., Choi, S. C., Clifton, G. L., Contant, C. F., et al. (2002) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/089771502753754037 · Cited by 913 · see citing works
Experimental models of traumatic brain injury: do we really need to build a better mousetrap?
Morales, D. M., Marklund, N., Lebold, D., Thompson, H. J., Pitkanen, A., Maxwell, W. L., Longhi, L., Laurer, H., Maegele, M., Neugebauer, E., et al. (2005) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.08.030 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Robertson, C. L., Puskar, A., Hoffman, G. E., Murphy, A. Z., Saraswati, M., & Fiskum, G. (2006) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2005.09.014 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Loane, D. J., & Faden, A. I. (2010) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2010.09.005 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
Imaging for the diagnosis and management of traumatic brain injury
Kim, J. J., & Gean, A. D. (2011) · Neurotherapeutics · doi:10.1007/s13311-010-0003-3 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Mechanically-induced membrane poration causes axonal beading and localized cytoskeletal damage
Kilinc, D., Gallo, G., & Barbee, K. A. (2008) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.04.025 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
The Inflammatory Continuum of Traumatic Brain Injury and Alzheimer’s Disease
Kokiko-Cochran, O. N., & Godbout, J. P. (2018) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2018.00672 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Cyclosporin A disposition following acute traumatic brain injury
Empey, P. E., McNamara, P. J., Young, B., Rosbolt, M. B., & Hatton, J. (2006) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2006.23.109 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schouten, J. W.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Schouten, Joost W
- ORCID
- Schouten, Joost W
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Critical Care
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 134-142
- ISSN
- 1070-5295 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976422798
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Opinion in Critical Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Neurological Disorders and Treatments
- Keywords
- traumatic brain injury, neuroprotection, neuroprotective agents, clinical translation, magnesium, cyclosporine, erythropoietin, progesterone, bradykinin receptor antagonists, pathophysiology
- MeSH terms
- Bradykinin, Brain Injuries, Erythropoietin, Humans, Magnesium, Mitochondria, Nitric Oxide, Neurotransmitter Agents, Neuroprotective Agents, Nitric Oxide Synthase, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review