n -甲基- d -天冬氨酸受体拮抗剂治疗创伤性脑损伤:临床研究的系统回顾。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jamil H Muradov, Hannah Reid, Ellen Parker, Jackie Phinney, David B Clarke, Alon Friedman, Mark A MacLean
{"title":"n -甲基- d -天冬氨酸受体拮抗剂治疗创伤性脑损伤:临床研究的系统回顾。","authors":"Jamil H Muradov, Hannah Reid, Ellen Parker, Jackie Phinney, David B Clarke, Alon Friedman, Mark A MacLean","doi":"10.1080/14737175.2025.2524102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of long-term disability. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) signaling constitutes an important target for pharmacological treatment options.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors have systematically reviewed primary clinical literature reporting on FDA-approved NMDAR antagonist treatment in TBI, based on a set of pre-defined eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) recommendations. Patient characteristics, treatment conditions, and outcomes were reported according to PRISMA guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review of five clinical literature databases identified 32 eligible studies. Of 1,827 included patients, the majority (74.8%) experienced severe TBI (weighted mean baseline GCS 6.35). Amantadine (24 studies) variably influenced functional recovery and was linked to adverse effects. Ketamine (five studies) variably lowered intracranial pressure and suppressed spreading depolarization. Memantine and dextromethorphan (2 and 1 studies, respectively) showed favorable safety profiles, though data were limited. Across controlled studies, there was a 0.46 (95% CI: 0.16-0.76) weighted mean difference between control and intervention, favoring NMDAR antagonist treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Future trials should incorporate mechanism-driven biomarkers and must expand research on safe, well-tolerated drugs to improve efficacy and mitigate adverse effects.<b>PROSPERO registration number</b>: CRD42024539051.</p>","PeriodicalId":12190,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor antagonist treatment in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the clinical studies.\",\"authors\":\"Jamil H Muradov, Hannah Reid, Ellen Parker, Jackie Phinney, David B Clarke, Alon Friedman, Mark A MacLean\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14737175.2025.2524102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of long-term disability. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) signaling constitutes an important target for pharmacological treatment options.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors have systematically reviewed primary clinical literature reporting on FDA-approved NMDAR antagonist treatment in TBI, based on a set of pre-defined eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) recommendations. Patient characteristics, treatment conditions, and outcomes were reported according to PRISMA guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This review of five clinical literature databases identified 32 eligible studies. Of 1,827 included patients, the majority (74.8%) experienced severe TBI (weighted mean baseline GCS 6.35). Amantadine (24 studies) variably influenced functional recovery and was linked to adverse effects. Ketamine (five studies) variably lowered intracranial pressure and suppressed spreading depolarization. Memantine and dextromethorphan (2 and 1 studies, respectively) showed favorable safety profiles, though data were limited. Across controlled studies, there was a 0.46 (95% CI: 0.16-0.76) weighted mean difference between control and intervention, favoring NMDAR antagonist treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Future trials should incorporate mechanism-driven biomarkers and must expand research on safe, well-tolerated drugs to improve efficacy and mitigate adverse effects.<b>PROSPERO registration number</b>: CRD42024539051.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2025.2524102\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2025.2524102","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

外伤性脑损伤(TBI)是导致长期残疾的主要原因。n -甲基- d -天冬氨酸受体(NMDAR)信号是药物治疗选择的重要靶点。方法:作者基于一套预先定义的资格标准,系统地回顾了fda批准的NMDAR拮抗剂治疗TBI的主要临床文献。偏倚风险评估采用苏格兰校际指南网络(SIGN)建议。根据PRISMA指南报告患者特征、治疗条件和结果。结果:本综述从5个临床文献数据库中筛选出32项符合条件的研究。在纳入的1827例患者中,大多数(74.8%)经历了严重的TBI(加权平均基线GCS为6.35)。金刚烷胺(24项研究)不同程度地影响功能恢复,并与不良反应有关。氯胺酮(5项研究)不同程度地降低了颅内压并抑制了去极化扩散。美金刚和右美沙芬(分别有2项和1项研究)显示出良好的安全性,尽管数据有限。在对照研究中,对照组和干预之间的加权平均差异为0.46 (95% CI: 0.16-0.76),有利于NMDAR拮抗剂治疗。结论:未来的试验应纳入机制驱动的生物标志物,并必须扩大对安全、耐受性良好的药物的研究,以提高疗效并减轻不良反应。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024539051。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
N-Methyl-D-Aspartate receptor antagonist treatment in traumatic brain injury: a systematic review of the clinical studies.

Introduction: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of long-term disability. N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) signaling constitutes an important target for pharmacological treatment options.

Methods: The authors have systematically reviewed primary clinical literature reporting on FDA-approved NMDAR antagonist treatment in TBI, based on a set of pre-defined eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) recommendations. Patient characteristics, treatment conditions, and outcomes were reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

Results: This review of five clinical literature databases identified 32 eligible studies. Of 1,827 included patients, the majority (74.8%) experienced severe TBI (weighted mean baseline GCS 6.35). Amantadine (24 studies) variably influenced functional recovery and was linked to adverse effects. Ketamine (five studies) variably lowered intracranial pressure and suppressed spreading depolarization. Memantine and dextromethorphan (2 and 1 studies, respectively) showed favorable safety profiles, though data were limited. Across controlled studies, there was a 0.46 (95% CI: 0.16-0.76) weighted mean difference between control and intervention, favoring NMDAR antagonist treatment.

Conclusions: Future trials should incorporate mechanism-driven biomarkers and must expand research on safe, well-tolerated drugs to improve efficacy and mitigate adverse effects.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024539051.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.30%
发文量
61
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics (ISSN 1473-7175) provides expert reviews on the use of drugs and medicines in clinical neurology and neuropsychiatry. Coverage includes disease management, new medicines and drugs in neurology, therapeutic indications, diagnostics, medical treatment guidelines and neurological diseases such as stroke, epilepsy, Alzheimer''s and Parkinson''s. Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Review format and includes the following sections: Expert Opinion - a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信