3120
Views & Citations2120
Likes & Shares
Traumatic
brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young
adults [1], According to some estimates severe TBI will become the third most common
cause of death and disability globally by the year 2020 [2]. In the past five
years, many Neuroprotective agents were tested, both in the lab and in clinical
settings, to determine which agent would show the best neurological outcome in
TBI. In spite of very promising lab results, Progesterone particularly showed
confusing clinical results, with some trials showing promising results and
others showing disappointing results. The aim of our study is to perform a
randomized, controlled, single blinded clinical trial to test the efficacy of
progesterone versus placebo in severe TBI.
STUDY GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the study is to compare early progesterone
administration and placebo in patients with severe TBI with the following
specific aims:
- Compare the baseline GCS on
admission and 15 days after initiation of treatment in both arms of the
study.
- Compare the TNF alpha levels
at baseline and 15 days after initiation of treatment in both arms of the
study.
- Determine the GOS 15 after
initiation of treatment in both arms of the study.
Determine whether there is a statistically significant difference
between both study arms at the end of the study.
Study Design
The study
is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single blinded clinical trial.
METHODOLOGY
In the
period between March and June 2015 30 patients with severe traumatic brain
injury were enrolled in this randomized controlled single blinded multicenter
study. The clinical, radiological as well as the laboratory assessments were
performed on admission and 15 days after the commencement of treatment.
Subjects
Inclusion criteria
Eligible
patients were adults who had severe TBI with a Glasgow coma Scale (GCS) score
of 4 to 9. Patients were enrolled in the study, if the treatment could be
initiated within 12 hours after injury.
Exclusion criteria
Patients who had sever anoxic brain damage or brain
death; history of
hormonal therapy before injury; clinically unstable patients (PO2 < 60mmHg,
or a systolic blood pressure <90mmHg, or if patients had cardio-pulmonary
resuscitation); pregnant and lactating females; or had an associated spinal
cord injury, were not included in the study.
Randomization strategy
Patients enrolled in the study were randomized to receive either progesterone or placebo. Randomization was done using a generation of random numbers protocol by the SPSS computer program version 20.0 with closed envelopes with disclosure of the treatment arm after confirming eligibility and exclusion criteria of the patient.
Informed Consent
Patients were enrolled in the study only after obtaining a written
informed consent from legally authorized representatives of the patient, who
were informed about inclusion in the study but blinded to the arm to which the
patient would be allocated.
Study Interventions
Patients, who were assigned to the progesterone arm, were given
hydroxyl-progesterone (Cidolut-Depot 250 mg/1ml) at a dose of (1 mg/kg twice
daily by an intramuscular route for 5 consecutive days).
Outcome Measures AND
Follow-UP
Primary Outcome
Measures
The primary outcome measure is the GCS and TNF alpha on admission and
15 days after admission
Secondary Outcome
Measures
The secondary outcome is the assessment of the GOS 15 days after
admission and on discharge.
Patients, who were discharged from the hospital, were followed up on an
outpatient basis. The post discharge follow-up was mainly clinical; however, no
further radiological or laboratory investigations were performed unless an
unexpected deterioration in the patient’s clinical condition took place.
Patients, who failed to attend follow up at the outpatient department, were
contacted by phone to determine whether any deterioration or death took place.
In this study the median follow-up period was 6.7 months.
Sample Size
Initially, 33patients were included in this study. However, the
relatives of two patients refused to participate in the study, and one patient
was transferred to another hospital.
ANALYSIS
AND RESULTS
Sample homogeneity:
Demographic
data (age and gender) were studied against both study groups (progesterone and
placebo) P = 0.506 and 0.925 respectively (P>0.05). This was done using the
(T-test for two independent groups and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov "K.S"
test) respectively.
The table shows no significant differences between control and study
groups, for all variables, before medical treatment, which reflects the
homogeneity of the two samples.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Is to test whether there is a statistical significance between both
arms of the study regarding:
a) Glasgow coma scale.
b) Glasgow outcome score.
c) Tumor necrosis factor alpha.
Before and after 15 days of starting progesterone treatment.
H0:m0=m1where m0 represents GCS, GOS and TNF alpha before
treatment, and m1represents GCS, GOS and TNF alpha 15 days
after treatment.
Hypothesis 2
Is to determine whether any of the variables in the study has a
statistically significant effect on neurological outcome of patients included
in the study.
H0: PiÏGi for i=1,2 (1= favorable and 2=
non-favorable outcomes). Where P=patients and G=groups.
Efficacy
of progesterone group
The following variables showed the following significant changes in the
progesterone group:
1- Temperature: there is a mild increase in
average temperature in patients after treatment compared to before treatment,
but this remained within the average range.
2- G.C.S: There is a significant improvement in
conscious level after treatment.
3- Serum TNF alpha: there is a significant decrease
in serum TNF alpha level after treatment.
As regards the other variables, there is no significant difference,
between values, before and after treatment.
Comparison between Progesterone and Placebo
Groups after Medical Treatment
The
results of the table above show no significant difference between control and
study groups, for all variables under assessment, 14 days after treatment.
The results show no significant difference between both groups,
regarding ventilation. Sig = 0.984 (P>0.05)
Tables (3a and 3b) show that, for all variables, there is no
statistically significant difference between both groups. Accordingly,
progesterone failed to produce a statistically significant improvement in
outcome for patients included in this study group.
The Effect of Different Variables on Patient
Outcome
The following table shows the most important variables, which have been
found to influence the neurological outcome (favorable, and unfavorable), for
all patients included in the study. This was done using a stepwise linear
binary discriminate function.
The
equation shows that the GCS is the single most important variable resulting in
a highly significant discriminate function, where the Chi-square test (P-value
<0.01), also with an increased value of Canonical correlation and decreased
Wilks' Lambda coefficient.
From the above table, it can be found that the ability of the model to
predict is excellent, where it succeeded in discriminating 95% of the total
observation.
DISCUSSION
Our results indicate no statistically significant difference in GOS or
TNF alpha levels (P>0.05) between both groups included in the study.
This shows that, when compared to placebo, progesterone failed to
produce a statistically significant improvement in patient outcomes as measured
by GOS 14 days after initiation of treatment. This did not change over a median
follow up of 6.7 months.
Our results contradict early (published) results [1, 3-5]. In the
meantime, they coincide with the results of [6-11].
This discrepancy is created by the fact that the results of early
single center studies indicated, that the administration of progesterone in TBI
patients was both effective and well tolerated. However, the two most recent,
large, phase-III, multicenter, controlled, double-blinded, randomized clinical
trials namely, the PROTECT III study and the SYNAPSE study, which enrolled more
than 2000 patients, came out with disappointing results, and revealed failure
of progesterone to achieve any improvement in the neurological outcome of
patients with severe TBI.
The recent poor results of the PROTECT and
SYNAPSE trials, for progesterone in TBI, have induced
researchers to seek possible causes for the negative outcome, which these two
studies have reported. Possible explanatory factors, which have been
indicated by researchers include; 1) the patho-physiological complexity
of TBI; 2) issues with the quality and clinical relevance of the
preclinical animal models; 3) insufficiently
sensitive clinical endpoints; and 4)
inappropriate clinical trial designs and strategies. Additionally,
other factors, which may have contributed to the negative results include: 1)
suboptimal doses and treatment durations in the Phase 2 studies;
2) lack of Phase 2B studies to optimize these variables before
initiating Phase 3; and 3) the lack of incorporation of the
preclinical and Chinese Phase 2 results, into the Phase 3
designs. Given these circumstances and the exceptional potential of progesterone as
a TBI therapeutic, recent studies recommend a return to phase 2B
trials [12].
Because progesterone has been proven to be safe and well tolerated in
all patients with severe TBI, no adverse effects of progesterone administration
have appeared in our study. In this study, the I.M route has been used, to
avoid an increased risk of phlebitis or thrombo-phlebitis of I.V use, and
fortunately no females, where menstrual disturbances may take place, have been
included in the study group.
A small number of patients and lack of long term follow limit our study
up. Adherence to the strict inclusion criteria and accurate data collection and
analysis have resulted in a small number of patients being enrolled. However,
the results, presented in the study, coincide with the most recent published
series reported in the literature [6, 8, 10].
Although the remarkable potential neuro-protective effects of
progesterone, in TBI, stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, epilepsy and other
neurological diseases in all age groups, have been proven more than once in
preclinical studies [13-30] clinical trials have failed to reproduce the
results obtained in the laboratory setting. The causes behind this discrepancy
warrant further investigation [9,12]. Also, as multiple pathways are involved
in the secondary cascade of TBI, combination of pharmacological therapies
targeting various mechanisms may work better than mono-therapy with
progesterone alone. As proven in other studies, progesterone was reported to be
more effective in treatment of TBI, when administrated with Vitamin D than
progesterone given individually [31, 32].
Progesterone with other chemicals such as nicotinamide, magnesium
sulphate, and thyrotropin releasing hormone (TRH) was also investigated on
animal models of TBI, and better outcome was observed [33, 34].
CONCLUSION
This
study failed to show an improvement in neurological outcome for patients with
severe TBI, who received progesterone compared to placebo with a median follow
up of 6.7 months. However, the small number of patients, the short period of
follow- up and the potential remarkable Neuro-protective benefits of
progesterone, which have been proven in a laboratory setting, warrant further
studies to find out the reason behind this discrepancy.
- Wei J, Xiao GM (2013) The
neuroprotective effects of progesterone on traumatic brain injury: current
status and future prospects. Acta pharmacologica Sinica 34: 1485-1490.
- Tolias CM, Bullock MR (2004)
Critical appraisal of neuroprotection trials in head injury: what have we
learned? NeuroRx 1: 71-79.
- Stein DG (2008) Progesterone
exerts neuroprotective effects after brain injury. Brain Res Rev 57:
386-397.
- Stein DG, Wright DW (2010)
Progesterone in the clinical treatment of acute traumatic brain injury.
Expert Opin investig Drugs 19: 847-857.
- Xiao GM, Wei J, Wu ZH, Wang
WM, Jiang QZ, et al. (2007) Clinical study on the therapeutic effects and
mechanism of progesterone in the treatment for acute severe head injury.
Chin J Surg 45: 106-108.
- Wright DW, Yeatts SD,
Silbergleit R, Palesch YY, Hertzberg VS, et al. (2014) Very early
administration of progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury. N Engl J
Med 371: 2457-2466.
- Zeng Y, Zhang Y, Ma J, Xu J
(2015) Progesterone for Acute Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review
of Randomized Controlled Trials. PloS one 10: e0140624.
- Skolnick BE, Maas AI, Narayan
RK, van der Hoop RG, MacAllister T, et al. (2014) A clinical trial of
progesterone for severe traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med 371:
2467-2476.
- Schumacher M, Denier C,
Oudinet JP, Adams D, Guennoun R (2015) Progesterone neuroprotection: The
background of clinical trial failure. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol.
- Meyfroidt G, Taccone FS
(2015) Another failed attempt of neuroprotection: Progesterone for moderate
and severe traumatic brain injury. Minerva anestesiologica.
- Lin C, He H, Li Z, Liu Y,
Chao H, Ji J, et al. (2015) Efficacy of progesterone for moderate to
severe traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical
trials. Sci Rep 5:13442.
- Howard RB, Sayeed I, Stein D
(2015) Suboptimal dosing parameters as possible factors in the negative
Phase III clinical trials of progesterone in TBI. J Neurotrauma.
- Pettus EH, Wright DW, Stein
DG, Hoffman SW (2005) Progesterone treatment inhibits the inflammatory
agents that accompany traumatic brain injury. Brain Res 1049: 112-119.
- De Nicola AF, Gonzalez SL,
Labombarda F, Gonzalez Deniselle MC, Garay L, et al. (2006) Progesterone
treatment of spinal cord injury: Effects on receptors, neurotrophins, and
myelination. J Mol Neurosci 28: 3-15.
- Djebaili M, Hoffman SW, Stein
DG (2004) Allopregnanolone and progesterone decrease cell death and
cognitive deficits after a contusion of the rat pre-frontal cortex.
Neurosci 123: 349-359.
- Gonzalez SL, Labombarda F,
Gonzalez Deniselle MC, Guennoun R, Schumacher M, et al. (2004)
Progesterone up-regulates neuronal brain-derived neurotrophic factor
expression in the injured spinal cord. Neurosci 125: 605-614.
- Guo Q, Sayeed I, Baronne LM,
Hoffman SW, Guennoun R, et al. (2006) Progesterone administration
modulates AQP4 expression and edema after traumatic brain injury in male
rats. Exp Neurol 198: 469-478.
- He J, Evans CO, Hoffman SW,
Oyesiku NM, Stein DG (2004) Progesterone and allopregnanolone reduce
inflammatory cytokines after traumatic brain injury. Exp Neurol 189:
404-412.
- Limmroth V, Lee WS, Moskowitz
MA (1996) GABAA-receptor-mediated effects of progesterone, its
ring-A-reduced metabolites and synthetic neuroactive steroids on
neurogenic oedema in the rat meninges. Br J Pharmacol 117: 99-104.
- Loane DJ, Faden AI (2010)
Neuroprotection for traumatic brain injury: translational challenges and
emerging therapeutic strategies. Trends Pharmacol Sci 31: 596-604.
- Luoma JI, Kelley BG,
Mermelstein PG (2011) Progesterone inhibition of voltage-gated calcium
channels is a potential neuroprotective mechanism against excitotoxicity.
Steroids 76: 845-855.
- Moorthy K, Sharma D, Basir
SF, Baquer NZ (2005) Administration of estradiol and progesterone modulate
the activities of antioxidant enzyme and aminotransferases in naturally
menopausal rats. Exp Gerontol 40:
295-302.
- Roof RL, Hall ED (2000)
Gender differences in acute CNS trauma and stroke: neuroprotective effects
of estrogen and progesterone. J Neurotrauma 17: 367-388.
- Roof RL, Hoffman SW, Stein DG
(1997) Progesterone protects against lipid peroxidation following
traumatic brain injury in rats. Mol Chem Neuropathol 31: 1-11.
- Schumacher M, Guennoun R,
Robert F, Carelli C, Gago N, et al. (2004) Local synthesis and dual
actions of progesterone in the nervous system: neuroprotection and
myelination. Growth Horm IGF Res 14: S18-S33.
- Schumacher M, Guennoun R,
Stein DG, De Nicola AF (2007) Progesterone: therapeutic opportunities for
neuroprotection and myelin repair. Pharmacol Ther 116: 77-106.
- Schumacher M, Robel P,
Baulieu EE (1996) Development and regeneration of the nervous system: a
role for neurosteroids. Dev Neurosci 18: 6-21.
- Smith SS (1991) Progesterone
administration attenuates excitatory amino acid responses of cerebellar
Purkinje cells. Neurosci 42: 309-320.
- VanLandingham JW, Cutler SM,
Virmani S, Hoffman SW, Covey DF, et al. (2006) The enantiomer of
progesterone acts as a molecular neuroprotectant after traumatic brain
injury. Neuropharmacol 51: 1078-1085.
- Wright DW, Bauer ME, Hoffman
SW, Stein DG (2001) Serum progesterone levels correlate with decreased
cerebral edema after traumatic brain injury in male rats. J Neurotrauma
18: 901-909.
- Cekic M, Cutler SM,
VanLandingham JW, Stein DG (2011) Vitamin D deficiency reduces the
benefits of progesterone treatment after brain injury in aged rats.
Neurobiol Aging 32: 864-874.
- Aminmansour B, Nikbakht H,
Ghorbani A, Rezvani M, Rahmani P, et al. (2012) Comparison of the
administration of progesterone versus progesterone and vitamin D in
improvement of outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury: A
randomized clinical trial with placebo group. Adv Biomed Res 1: 58.
- Peterson TC, Hoane MR,
McConomy KS, Farin FM, Bammler TK, et al. (2015) A Combination Therapy of
Nicotinamide and Progesterone Improves Functional Recovery following
Traumatic Brain Injury. J Neurotrauma 32: 765-779.
- Uysal N, Baykara B, Kiray M,
Cetin F, Aksu I, Dayi A, et al. (2013) Combined treatment with
progesterone and magnesium sulfate positively affects traumatic brain
injury in immature rats. Tur Neurosurg 23: 129-1237.
QUICK LINKS
- SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT
- RECOMMEND THE JOURNAL
-
SUBSCRIBE FOR ALERTS
RELATED JOURNALS
- Journal of Psychiatry and Psychology Research (ISSN:2640-6136)
- Advance Research on Endocrinology and Metabolism (ISSN: 2689-8209)
- International Journal of Diabetes (ISSN: 2644-3031)
- International Journal of Radiography Imaging & Radiation Therapy (ISSN:2642-0392)
- Advance Research on Alzheimers and Parkinsons Disease
- Journal of Rheumatology Research (ISSN:2641-6999)
- Journal of Pathology and Toxicology Research