BACKGROUND: Tau is aberrantly acetylated in various neurodegenerative conditions, including Alzheimers disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Previously, we reported that reducing acetylated tau by pharmacologically inhibiting p300-mediated tau acetylation at lysine 174 reduces tau pathology and improves cognitive function in animal models. METHODS: We investigated the therapeutic efficacy of two different antibodies that specifically target acetylated lysine 174 on tau (ac-tauK174). We treated PS19 mice, which harbor the P301S tauopathy mutation that causes FTLD, with anti-ac-tauK174 and measured effects on tau pathology, neurodegeneration, and neurobehavioral outcomes. Furthermore, PS19 mice received treatment post-TBI to evaluate the ability of the immunotherapy to prevent TBI-induced exacerbation of tauopathy phenotypes. Ac-tauK174 measurements in human plasma following TBI were also collected to establish a link between trauma and acetylated tau levels, and single nuclei RNA-sequencing of post-TBI brain tissues from treated mice provided insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the observed treatment effects. RESULTS: Anti-ac-tauK174 treatment mitigates neurobehavioral impairment and reduces tau pathology in PS19 mice. Ac-tauK174 increases significantly in human plasma 24 h after TBI, and anti-ac-tauK174 treatment of PS19 mice blocked TBI-induced neurodegeneration and preserved memory functions. Anti-ac-tauK174 treatment rescues alterations of microglial and oligodendrocyte transcriptomic states following TBI in PS19 mice. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of anti-ac-tauK174 treatment to rescue neurobehavioral impairment, reduce tau pathology, and rescue glial responses demonstrates that targeting tau acetylation at K174 is a promising neuroprotective therapeutic approach to human tauopathies resulting from TBI or genetic disease.

BACKGROUND: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. OBJECTIVE: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. METHODS: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. RESULTS: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. CONCLUSION: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.

Background

Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place.

Methods

Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting.

Results

We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms.

Conclusions

These protocols are intended to assist clinicians in the management of patients with both ICP and brain oxygen monitors but they do not reflect either a standard-of-care or a substitute for thoughtful individualized management. These protocols should be used in conjunction with recommendations for basic care, management of critical neuroworsening and weaning treatment recently published in conjunction with the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference.

Background

Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation's sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based.

Methods

We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists' decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations.

Results

We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination.

Conclusions

Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary surgical practices for traumatic brain injury (TBI) remain unclear. We describe the clinical profile of an 18-centre US TBI cohort with cranial surgery. METHODS: The prospective, observational Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study (2014-2018; ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02119182) enrolled subjects who presented to trauma centre and received head computed tomography within 24-h (h) post-TBI. We performed a secondary data analysis in subjects aged ≥17-years with hospitalisation. Clinical characteristics, surgery type/timing, hospital and six-month outcomes were reported. FINDINGS: Of 2032 subjects (age: mean = 41.4-years, range = 17-89-years; male = 71% female = 29%), 260 underwent cranial surgery, comprising 65% decompressive craniectomy, 23% craniotomy, 12% other surgery. Subjects with surgery (vs. without surgery) presented with worse neurological injury (median Glasgow Coma Scale = 6 vs. 15; midline shift ≥5 mm: 48% vs. 2%; cisternal effacement: 61% vs. 4%; p < 0.0001). Median time-to-craniectomy/craniotomy was 1.8 h (interquartile range = 1.1-5.0 h), and 67% underwent intracranial pressure monitoring. Seventy-three percent of subjects with decompressive craniectomy and 58% of subjects with craniotomy had ≥3 intracranial lesion types. Decompressive craniectomy (vs. craniotomy) was associated with intracranial injury severity (median Rotterdam Score = 4 vs. 3, p < 0.0001), intensive care length of stay (median = 13 vs. 4-days, p = 0.0002), and six-month unfavourable outcome (62% vs. 30%; p = 0.0001). Earlier time-to-craniectomy was associated with intracranial injury severity. INTERPRETATION: In a large representative cohort of patients hospitalised with TBI, surgical decision-making and time-to-surgery aligned with intracranial injury severity. Multifocal TBIs predominated in patients with cranial surgery. These findings summarise current TBI surgical practice across US trauma centres and provide the foundation for analyses in targeted subpopulations. FUNDING: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; US Department of Defense; Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation.