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.

Disorders of consciousness are neurological conditions characterized by impaired arousal and awareness of self and environment. Behavioural responses are absent or are present but fluctuate. Disorders of consciousness are commonly encountered as a consequence of both acute and chronic brain injuries, yet reliable epidemiological estimates would require inclusive, operational definitions of the concept, as well as wider knowledge dissemination among involved professionals. Whereas several manifestations have been described, including coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and minimally conscious state, a comprehensive neurobiological definition for disorders of consciousness is still lacking. The scientific literature is primarily observational, and studies-specific aetiologies lead to disorders of consciousness. Despite advances in these disease-related forms, there remains uncertainty about whether disorders of consciousness are a disease-agnostic unitary entity with a common mechanism, prognosis or treatment response paradigm. Our knowledge of disorders of consciousness has also been hampered by heterogeneity of study designs, variables, and outcomes, leading to results that are not comparable for evidence synthesis. The different backgrounds of professionals caring for patients with disorders of consciousness and the different goals at different stages of care could partly explain this variability. The Prospective Studies working group of the Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign was established to create a platform for observational studies and future clinical trials on disorders of consciousness and coma across the continuum of care. In this narrative review, the author panel presents limitations of prior observational clinical research and outlines practical considerations for future investigations. A narrative review format was selected to ensure that the full breadth of study design considerations could be addressed and to facilitate a future consensus-based statement (e.g. via a modified Delphi) and series of recommendations. The panel convened weekly online meetings from October 2021 to December 2022. Research considerations addressed the nosographic status of disorders of consciousness, case ascertainment and verification, selection of dependent variables, choice of covariates and measurement and analysis of outcomes and covariates, aiming to promote more homogeneous designs and practices in future observational studies. The goal of this review is to inform a broad community of professionals with different backgrounds and clinical interests to address the methodological challenges imposed by the transition of care from acute to chronic stages and to streamline data gathering for patients with disorders of consciousness. A coordinated effort will be a key to allow reliable observational data synthesis and epidemiological estimates and ultimately inform condition-modifying clinical trials.