Background: Factors such as age, pre-injury health, and injury severity, account for less than 35% of outcome variability in traumatic brain injury (TBI). While some residual outcome variability... Show moreBackground: Factors such as age, pre-injury health, and injury severity, account for less than 35% of outcome variability in traumatic brain injury (TBI). While some residual outcome variability may be attributable to genetic factors, published candidate gene association studies have often been underpowered and subject to publication bias. Methods: We performed the first genome-and transcriptome-wide association studies (GWAS, TWAS) of genetic effects on outcome in TBI. The study population consisted of 5268 patients from prospective European and US studies, who attended hospital within 24 h of TBI, and satisfied local protocols for computed tomography. Findings: The estimated heritability of TBI outcome was 0.26. GWAS revealed no genetic variants with genome-wide significance (p < 5 x 10(-8)), but identified 83 variants in 13 independent loci which met a lower pre-specified sub-genomic statistical threshold (p < 10(-5)). Similarly, none of the genes tested in TWAS met tissue-wide significance. An exploratory analysis of 75 published candidate variants associated with 28 genes revealed one replicable variant (rs1800450 in the MBL2 gene) which retained significance after correction for multiple comparison (p = 5.24 x 10(-4). Interpretation: While multiple novel loci reached less stringent thresholds, none achieved genome-wide significance. The overall heritability estimate, however, is consistent with the hypothesis that common genetic variation substantially contributes to inter-individual variability in TBI outcome. The meta-analytic approach to the GWAS and the availability of summary data allows for a continuous extension with additional cohorts as data becomes available. Show less
Loss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month... Show moreLoss to follow-up and missing outcomes data are important issues for longitudinal observational studies and clinical trials in traumatic brain injury. One popular solution to missing 6-month outcomes has been to use the last observation carried forward (LOCF). The purpose of the current study was to compare the performance of model-based single-imputation methods with that of the LOCF approach. We hypothesized that model-based methods would perform better as they potentially make better use of available outcome data. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study (n = 4509) included longitudinal outcome collection at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-injury; a total of 8185 Glasgow Outcome Scale extended (GOSe) observations were included in the database. We compared single imputation of 6-month outcomes using LOCF, a multiple imputation (MI) panel imputation, a mixed-effect model, a Gaussian process regression, and a multi-state model. Model performance was assessed via cross-validation on the subset of individuals with a valid GOSe value within 180 +/- 14 days post-injury (n = 1083). All models were fit on the entire available data after removing the 180 +/- 14 days post-injury observations from the respective test fold. The LOCF method showed lower accuracy (i.e., poorer agreement between imputed and observed values) than model-based methods of imputation, and showed a strong negative bias (i.e., it imputed lower than observed outcomes). Accuracy and bias for the model-based approaches were similar to one another, with the multi-state model having the best overall performance. All methods of imputation showed variation across different outcome categories, with better performance for more frequent outcomes. We conclude that model-based methods of single imputation have substantial performance advantages over LOCF, in addition to providing more complete outcome data. Show less
Wijk, R.P.J. van; Dijck, J.T.J.M. van; Timmers, M.; Veen, E. van; Citerio, G.; Lingsma, H.F.; ... ; CENTER-TB1 Investigators 2020
Purpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in... Show morePurpose: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (731) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice.Methods: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries.Results: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N 426;20%) and deferred consent (N 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%).Conclusions: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
