4.6 Review

Psychedelics for Brain Injury: A Mini-Review

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.685085

关键词

psychedelics; neuroinflammation; neuroplasticity; stroke; brain injury; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stroke and traumatic brain injury are major causes of disability, but pharmacologic treatment of brain injury is still in its infancy. Recent clinical trials are exploring the potential of psychedelic therapeutics in influencing neuroinflammation, hippocampal neurogenesis, and neuroplasticity to treat brain injury. Further trials will provide insight into how these drugs may impact brain injury treatment, particularly in cases of TBI and reperfusion injury from stroke.
Objective: Stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI) are among the leading causes of disability. Even after engaging in rehabilitation, nearly half of patients with severe TBI requiring hospitalization are left with major disability. Despite decades of investigation, pharmacologic treatment of brain injury is still a field in its infancy. Recent clinical trials have begun into the use of psychedelic therapeutics for treatment of brain injury. This brief review aims to summarize the current state of the science's relevance to neurorehabilitation, and may act as a resource for those seeking to understand the precedence for these ongoing clinical trials. Methods: Narrative mini-review of studies published related to psychedelic therapeutics and brain injury. Results: Recent in vitro, in vivo, and case report studies suggest psychedelic pharmacotherapies may influence the future of brain injury treatment through modulation of neuroinflammation, hippocampal neurogenesis, neuroplasticity, and brain complexity. Conclusions: Historical data on the safety of some of these substances could serve in effect as phase 0 and phase I studies. Further phase II trials will illuminate how these drugs may treat brain injury, particularly TBI and reperfusion injury from stroke.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据