No abstract

Background: Aggression is a commonly reported problem following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It may present as verbal insults or outbursts, physical assaults, and/or property destruction. Aggressive behavior can fracture relationships and impede participation in treatment as well as a broad range of vocational and social activities, thereby reducing the individual's quality of life. Pharmacological intervention is frequently used to control aggression following TBI. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI in adults.Methods: We reviewed studies in English, available before December 2018. MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases were searched, with additional searching of key journals, clinical trials registries, and international drug regulators. The primary outcomes of interest were reduction in the severity of aggression and occurrence of harms. The secondary outcomes of interest were changes in quality of life, participation, psychological health (e.g., depression, anxiety), and cognitive function. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments.Results: Ten studies were identified, including five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five case series. There were positive, albeit mixed, findings for the RCTs examining the use of amantadine in reducing irritability (n = 2) and aggression (n = 2). There were some positive findings favoring methylphenidate in reducing anger (n = 1). The evidence for propranolol was weak (n = 1). Individual analysis revealed differential drug response across individuals for both methylphenidate and propranolol. The less rigorous studies administered carbamazepine (n = 2), valproic acid (n = 1), quetiapine (n = 1), and sertraline (n = 1), and all reported reductions in aggression. However, given the lack of a control group, it is difficult to discern treatment effects from natural change over time.Conclusions: This review concludes that a recommendation for use of amantadine to treat aggression and irritability in adults following TBI is appropriate. However, there is a need for further well-designed, adequately powered and controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for aggression following TBI.

Many individuals in post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) experience neurobehavioral symptoms (NBS) in addition to disorientation and amnesia. These symptoms are associated with low rehabilitation engagement, self-inflicted harm, and risk of violence. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and harms of pharmacological interventions for NBS in PTA following TBI in adults. Studies in English published before December 2017 were reviewed. Six databases were searched, with additional hand searching of key journals, clinical trials registries, and international drug regulators. Evidence quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. Thirteen studies were identified: three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three cohort studies, and seven case series. In the RCTs, neither amantadine nor sertraline reduced NBS. Less rigorous studies reported reduced NBS in patients administered haloperidol, ziprasidone, carbamazepine, amitriptyline, desipramine, and varied neuroleptics. There is a paucity of well-designed, adequately powered and controlled studies of pharmacological interventions for NBS in PTA. More research is needed to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations and improve care.

Summary Background A range of ‘field‐directed’ treatments is available for the management of extensive skin field cancerization (ESFC), but to date, the only validated objective quantitative tools are limited to assessment of actinic keratoses (AKs) affecting the head. Aims To develop a versatile quantitative instrument for objective clinical assessment of ESFC and perform initial internal validation across multiple anatomical zones. Methods The study comprised instrument development, pilot testing and instrument refinement and two rounds of reliability and inter‐rater validation testing. The study was noninterventional and used a convenience sample of de‐identified patient photographs selected based on preset criteria. An expert panel developed the instrument and scoring system via a modified Delphi voting process. A sample of 16 healthcare professionals from multiple specialties undertook the pilot testing, and a panel of seven dermatologists were involved in validation testing. Validation was determined by assessment of overall inter‐rater agreement using Gwet chance‐corrected agreement coefficients (ACs). Results The instrument produced, called the Method for Assessing Skin Cancer and Keratoses™ (MASCK™), comprises the Skin Field Cancerization Index (SFCIndex), derived from area of skin involvement and AKs (number and thickness), a global assessment score and a cancer‐in‐zone score, and uses Likert scales for quantitative scoring. The SFCIndex is a composite score comprising the number and thickness of AKs multiplied by area of skin involvement. ACs for the SFCIndex components, the overall SFCIndex score and the global assessment score were > 0.80 (rated ‘almost perfect’) while the AC for the cancer‐in‐zone metric was lower (0.33, rated ‘fair’). Internal consistency was demonstrated via positive correlation between the overall SFCIndex score and the global assessment score. Conclusions Our study found near‐perfect agreement in inter‐rater reliability when using MASCK to assess the severity of ESFC in multiple anatomical sites. Further validation of this novel instrument is planned to specifically assess its reliability, utility and feasibility in clinical practice.

No abstract