No abstract

Background/Objective For patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and their families, the search for new therapies has been a source of hope and frustration. Almost all clinical trials in patients with DoC have been limited by small sample sizes, lack of placebo groups, and use of heterogeneous outcome measures. As a result, few therapies have strong evidence to support their use; amantadine is the only therapy recommended by current clinical guidelines, specifically for patients with DoC caused by severe traumatic brain injury. To foster and advance development of consciousness-promoting therapies for patients with DoC, the Curing Coma Campaign convened a Coma Science Work Group to perform a gap analysis. Methods We consider five classes of therapies: (1) pharmacologic; (2) electromagnetic; (3) mechanical; (4) sensory; and (5) regenerative. For each class of therapy, we summarize the state of the science, identify gaps in knowledge, and suggest future directions for therapy development. Results Knowledge gaps in all five therapeutic classes can be attributed to the lack of: (1) a unifying conceptual framework for evaluating therapeutic mechanisms of action; (2) large-scale randomized controlled trials; and (3) pharmacodynamic biomarkers that measure subclinical therapeutic effects in early-phase trials. To address these gaps, we propose a precision medicine approach in which clinical trials selectively enroll patients based upon their physiological receptivity to targeted therapies, and therapeutic effects are measured by complementary behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiologic endpoints. Conclusions This personalized approach can be realized through rigorous clinical trial design and international collaboration, both of which will be essential for advancing the development of new therapies and ultimately improving the lives of patients with DoC.

No abstract

IRT substantially affected diabetes metrics and improved QoL among pediatric patients with T1D. Adolescents experienced a stronger treatment effect, but had difficulty in sustaining improved control after intervention cessation.

No abstract

This proceedings article presents actionable research targets on the basis of the presentations and discussions at the 2nd Curing Coma National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium held from May 3 to May 5, 2021. Here, we summarize the background, research priorities, panel discussions, and deliverables discussed during the symposium across six major domains related to disorders of consciousness. The six domains include (1) Biology of Coma, (2) Coma Database, (3) Neuroprognostication, (4) Care of Comatose Patients, (5) Early Clinical Trials, and (6) Long-term Recovery. Following the 1st Curing Coma NIH virtual symposium held on September 9 to September 10, 2020, six workgroups, each consisting of field experts in respective domains, were formed and tasked with identifying gaps and developing key priorities and deliverables to advance the mission of the Curing Coma Campaign. The highly interactive and inspiring presentations and panel discussions during the 3-day virtual NIH symposium identified several action items for the Curing Coma Campaign mission, which we summarize in this article.

No abstract

The epidemiology of coma is unknown because case ascertainment with traditional methods is difficult. Here, we used crowdsourcing methodology to estimate the incidence and prevalence of coma in the UK and the USA. We recruited UK and US laypeople (aged ≥18 years) who were nationally representative (i.e. matched for age, gender and ethnicity according to census data) of the UK and the USA, respectively, utilizing a crowdsourcing platform. We provided a description of coma and asked survey participants if they—‘right now’ or ‘within the last year’—had a family member in coma. These participants (UK n = 994, USA n = 977) provided data on 30 387 family members (UK n = 14 124, USA n = 16 263). We found more coma cases in the USA (n = 47) than in the UK (n = 20; P = 0.009). We identified one coma case in the UK (0.007%, 95% confidence interval 0.00–0.04%) on the day of the survey and 19 new coma cases (0.13%, 95% confidence interval 0.08–0.21%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 135/100 000 (95% confidence interval 81–210) and a point prevalence of 7 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 0.18–39.44) in the UK. We identified five cases in the USA (0.031%, 95% confidence interval 0.01–0.07%) on the day of the survey and 42 new cases (0.26%, 95% confidence interval 0.19–0.35%) within the preceding year, resulting in an annual incidence of 258/100 000 (95% confidence interval 186–349) and a point prevalence of 31 cases per 100 000 population (95% confidence interval 9.98–71.73) in the USA. The five most common causes were stroke, medically induced coma, COVID-19, traumatic brain injury and cardiac arrest. To summarize, for the first time, we report incidence and prevalence estimates for coma across diagnosis types and settings in the UK and the USA using crowdsourcing methods. Coma may be more prevalent in the USA than in the UK, which requires further investigation. These data are urgently needed to expand the public health perspective on coma and disorders of consciousness.