Objectives: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the top causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The review aimed to discuss and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of adjuvant neuroprotective treatments in terms of their effect on brain injury biomarkers in TBI patients.Methods: To identify relevant studies, four scholarly databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were systematically searched using predefined search terms. English-language randomized controlled clinical trials reporting changes in brain injury biomarkers, namely, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal esterase L1 (UCHL1) and/or S100 beta (S100 ß), were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.Results: A total of eleven studies with eight different therapeutic options were investigated; of them, tetracyclines, metformin, and memantine were discovered to be promising choices that could improve neurological outcomes in TBI patients. The most utilized serum biomarkers were NSE and S100 ß followed by GFAP, while none of the included studies quantified UCHL1. The heterogeneity in injury severity categories and measurement timing may affect the overall evaluation of the clinical efficacy of potential therapies. Therefore, unified measurement protocols are highly warranted to inform clinical decisions.Conclusion: Few therapeutic options showed promising results as an adjuvant to standard care in patients with TBI. Several considerations for future work must be directed towards standardizing monitoring biomarkers. Investigating the pharmacotherapy effectiveness using a multimodal biomarker panel is needed. Finally, employing stratified randomization in future clinical trials concerning potential confounders, including age, trauma severity levels, and type, is crucial to inform clinical decisions.Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/dis], identifier [CRD42022316327].

BackgroundPharmacy students will assume future roles as frontline healthcare providers. Therefore, evaluating their current state of mental wellbeing and its associated factors is essential for better planning students' support initiatives. This study aimed to assess mental wellbeing and its associated factors among undergraduate pharmacy students from 14 countries during the pandemic.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among undergraduate pharmacy students in 14 countries in Asia and the Middle East. The validated Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (the 14-item WEMWBS) was adopted to assess mental wellbeing. Data collection was performed online between February and April 2022. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used as appropriate.ResultsA total of 2,665 responses were received, mainly from females (68.7%) with a higher presence of private universities (59.1%). About 34.9% had low mental wellbeing levels, while 57 and 8.1% had medium, and high levels, respectively. Binary logistic regression showed that males (AOR: 1.34; CI 95%: 1.11–1.61; p < 0.01) and students with no chronic illnesses (AOR: 2.01; CI 95%: 1.45–2.80; p < 0.001) were more likely to have higher mental wellbeing. Also, participants who did not engage in any exercise (AOR: 0.71; CI 95%: 0.52–0.98; p = 0.04) and those in public universities (AOR: 0.82; CI 95%: 0.69–0.97; p = 0.02) were less likely to have higher mental wellbeing. Additionally, students who had interest/passion for pharmacy (AOR: 1.69; CI 95%: 1.07–2.68; p = 0.02), and those who known pharmacists inspired (AOR: 1.81; CI 95%: 1.06–3.12; p = 0.03), were more likely to have higher mental wellbeing compared with those who had no specific reason for their choice to study pharmacy. The participants with excellent (AOR: 1.87; CI 95%: 1.29–2.70; p = 0.001) or very good self-reported academic performance (AOR: 1.57; CI 95%: 1.12–2.22; p = 0.01) were more likely to have higher mental wellbeing compared to those with fair academic performance.ConclusionMore than a third of the participants had low mental wellbeing. Various demographic, lifestyle, medical and academic factors appeared to affect students' mental wellbeing. Careful consideration of these factors and their integration into the pharmacy schools' plans for student support services and academic advising would be essential to improve students' mental wellbeing.

No abstract