A concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by traumatic brain injury (TBI) is long overdue. TBI is a public health challenge of vast, but insufficiently recognised, proportions. Worldwide, more than 50 million people have a TBI each year, and it is estimated that about half the world's population will have one or more TBIs over their lifetime. TBI is the leading cause of mortality in young adults and a major cause of death and disability across all ages in all countries, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been estimated that TBI costs the global economy approximately $US400 billion annually. Deficiencies in prevention, care, and research urgently need to be addressed to reduce the huge burden and societal costs of TBI. This Commission highlights priorities and provides expert recommendations for all stakeholders—policy makers, funders, health-care professionals, researchers, and patient representatives—on clinical and research strategies to reduce this growing public health problem and improve the lives of people with TBI.Additional co-authors: Endre Czeiter, Marek Czosnyka, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, Jens P Dreier, Ann-Christine Duhaime, Ari Ercole, Thomas A van Essen, Valery L Feigin, Guoyi Gao, Joseph Giacino, Laura E Gonzalez-Lara, Russell L Gruen, Deepak Gupta, Jed A Hartings, Sean Hill, Ji-yao Jiang, Naomi Ketharanathan, Erwin J O Kompanje, Linda Lanyon, Steven Laureys, Fiona Lecky, Harvey Levin, Hester F Lingsma, Marc Maegele, Marek Majdan, Geoffrey Manley, Jill Marsteller, Luciana Mascia, Charles McFadyen, Stefania Mondello, Virginia Newcombe, Aarno Palotie, Paul M Parizel, Wilco Peul, James Piercy, Suzanne Polinder, Louis Puybasset, Todd E Rasmussen, Rolf Rossaint, Peter Smielewski, Jeannette Söderberg, Simon J Stanworth, Murray B Stein, Nicole von Steinbüchel, William Stewart, Ewout W Steyerberg, Nino Stocchetti, Anneliese Synnot, Braden Te Ao, Olli Tenovuo, Alice Theadom, Dick Tibboel, Walter Videtta, Kevin K W Wang, W Huw Williams, Kristine Yaffe for the InTBIR Participants and Investigator

In November 2017, the Lancet Neurology Commission on Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) highlighted existing deficiencies in epidemiology, patient characterization, identifying best practice, outcome assessment, and evidence generation. The Commission concluded that C needed to address deficiencies in prevention , and made a recommendation for large collaborative studies which could provide the framework for precision medicine and comparative effectiveness research (CER).

BackgroundNo definitive evidence exists on how intracranial hypertension should be treated in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is therefore likely that centers and practitioners individually balance potential benefits and risks of different intracranial pressure (ICP) management strategies, resulting in practice variation. The aim of this study was to examine variation in monitoring and treatment policies for intracranial hypertension in patients with TBI.MethodsA 29-item survey on ICP monitoring and treatment was developed on the basis of literature and expert opinion, and it was pilot-tested in 16 centers. The questionnaire was sent to 68 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study.ResultsThe survey was completed by 66 centers (97% response rate). Centers were mainly academic hospitals (n = 60, 91%) and designated level I trauma centers (n = 44, 67%). The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines were used in 49 (74%) centers. Approximately 90% of the participants (n = 58) indicated placing an ICP monitor in patients with severe TBI and computed tomographic abnormalities. There was no consensus on other indications or on peri-insertion precautions. We found wide variation in the use of first- and second-tier treatments for elevated ICP. Approximately half of the centers were classified as using a relatively aggressive approach to ICP monitoring and treatment (n = 32, 48%), whereas the others were considered more conservative (n = 34, 52%).ConclusionsSubstantial variation was found regarding monitoring and treatment policies in patients with TBI and intracranial hypertension. The results of this survey indicate a lack of consensus between European neurotrauma centers and provide an opportunity and necessity for comparative effectiveness research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1816-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Data on renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was collected by the European Renal Association (ERA) Registry via national and regional renal registries in Europe and countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. This paper provides a summary of the 2019 ERA Registry Annual Report, including data from 34 countries and additional age comparisons. Methods Individual patient data for 2019 was provided by 35 registries and aggregated data by 17 registries. Using this data, the incidence and prevalence of RRT, the kidney transplantation activity and the survival probabilities were calculated. Results In 2019, a general population of 680.8 million people was covered by the ERA Registry. Overall, the incidence of RRT was 132 per million population (p.m.p.). Of these patients, 62% were men, 54% were ≥ 65 years of age, 21% had diabetes mellitus as primary renal disease, and 84% had haemodialysis (HD), 11% had peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 5% had pre-emptive kidney transplantation as initial treatment modality. The overall prevalence of RRT on 31 December 2019 was 893 p.m.p., with 58% of patients on HD, 5% on PD, and 37% living with a kidney transplant. The overall kidney transplant rate was 35 p.m.p. and 29% of the kidney grafts were from a living donor. The unadjusted 5-year survival probability was 42.3% for patients commencing dialysis, 86.6% for recipients of deceased donor grafts and 94.4% for recipients of living donor grafts in the period 2010–2014. When comparing age categories, there were substantial differences in the distribution of primary renal disease, treatment modality, kidney donor type, and in the survival probabilities.