4.5 Article

Neuropharmacological modulation of cognitive deficits after brain damage

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROLOGY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 675-680

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.wco.0000189872.54245.13

关键词

cognitive function; neuropharmacology; stroke; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review This review discusses recent studies that have implications for potential neuropharmacological interventions which target cognitive deficits resulting from traumatic brain injury or stroke. Recent findings An important new study concerning the activity of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors after brain injury reveals that previous influential hypotheses about an increase in glutamate triggering neuronal death may need to be revised. Furthermore, the study suggests that cognitive function may be best preserved by stimulation of NMDA receptors with agonists rather than by the use of antagonists, as previously believed. Investigations of animal models of stroke and traumatic brain injury have further demonstrated the possibility of intervening in the acute and sub-acute stages to protect specific brain systems, such as preservation of the cholinergic system (via cholinesterase inhibitors) and hippocampal neurons (via a D2 agonist). Clinical trials in humans indicate it is also possible to target these neurotransmitter systems to enhance cognitive performance in patients with chronic deficits. In particular, recent studies demonstrated that it is possible to ameliorate the effects of two common cognitive syndromes, visual neglect and aphasia. Summary Cognitive deficits are an extremely common consequence of either traumatic brain injury or stroke. Recent studies demonstrate the potential for using neuropharmacological intervention after acquired brain injury to prevent or ameliorate the effects of cognitive impairments. These treatments, however, are still in their preliminary stages and further research is required to identify the most effective compounds.

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

4.5
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