1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Chemicals
3.2. Experimental Protocol
3.2.1. Randomisation and Blinding
3.2.2. Experimental Design for Induction of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
3.2.3. Behavioral Testing
3.2.3.1. Neurological Severity Score
3.2.3.2. Beam Walk Test
3.2.3.3. Open Field Test
3.2.4. Liver Perfusion Method
3.2.5. Supplement Doses and Duration
3.2.6. Chromatographic Conditions
3.2.7. CYP2D6 Activity Assessment
3.2.8. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Initial Index
4.2. Behavioral Testing
4.2.1. Neurological Severity Score Test
Graphical representation of different behavioral test results by sham and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) animals (n = 5, mean ± SD): A, the average number of neurological severity score (NSS); B, the average number of hind-leg foot-slips; C, the average traveled beam time; D, the average distance traveled; E, the average travel speed; F, the number of learning/rearing (* P < 0.05 when compared to the control group).
4.2.2. Beam Walk Test: Assessment of Motor Function Deficits After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
4.2.3. Open Field Test: Assessment of Locomotor Activity
4.3. Interleukin-6 Post-Traumatic Changes in Interleukin-6 Levels and the Impact of Supplementation
Comparative levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) in control and treatment groups at A, 5 days and B, 7 days post-trauma [n = 5 per group, mean ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test. Significant group differences were observed at both time points (P < 0.05). Effect sizes were moderate to large (η² = 0.21 at day 5; η² = 0.27 at day 7), indicating a biologically meaningful elevation of IL-6 in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) groups compared with controls. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 versus control group
4.4. Liver Perfusion: Changes in Tramadol Metabolic Ratio Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and the Effect of Supplementation
Mean metabolic ratio of 8-OH [±95% confidence intervals (CI)] at different time intervals in control and treatment groups following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Panels show 8-OH ratios at A, day 3; B, day 7; C, day 28 post-trauma (n = 3 per group); and D, illustrates the comparative trend of 8-OH metabolic ratios over 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. CYP2D6-dependent metabolism of mirtazapine (8-OH formation) was markedly suppressed at day 3 (P < 0.001, η² = 0.38), showed partial recovery at day 7 (P < 0.01, η² = 0.29), and remained significantly lower than control at day 28 in non-supplemented groups (P < 0.05, η² = 0.22). Supplemented groups demonstrated accelerated metabolic recovery approaching baseline levels. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 vs. control group
4.5. Changes in Mirtazapine Metabolic Ratio Following Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and the Effect of Supplementation
Mean metabolic ratio of M1 [±95% confidence intervals (CI)] at different time intervals following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in control and treatment groups (n = 3 per group). Panels show M1 ratios at A, day 3; B, day 7; C, day 28 post-trauma; and D, displays the comparative trend of M1 metabolic ratios over 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. CYP2D6 activity, reflected by M1 metabolic ratio, was significantly reduced at day 3 in mTBI rats compared to controls (P < 0.01, η² = 0.32), partially restored by day 7 (P < 0.05, η² = 0.24), and returned to or exceeded baseline levels by day 28 in supplemented groups (P < 0.05, η² = 0.27). * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 vs. control group

![Comparative levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) in control and treatment groups at A, 5 days and B, 7 days post-trauma [n = 5 per group, mean ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test. Significant group differences were observed at both time points (P < 0.05). Effect sizes were moderate to large (η² = 0.21 at day 5; η² = 0.27 at day 7), indicating a biologically meaningful elevation of IL-6 in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) groups compared with controls. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 versus control group Comparative levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) in control and treatment groups at A, 5 days and B, 7 days post-trauma [n = 5 per group, mean ± 95% confidence intervals (CI)]. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test. Significant group differences were observed at both time points (P < 0.05). Effect sizes were moderate to large (η² = 0.21 at day 5; η² = 0.27 at day 7), indicating a biologically meaningful elevation of IL-6 in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) groups compared with controls. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 versus control group](https://brieflands.com/journals/ijpr/articles/164903/figures/ijpr-25-1-164903-i002-preview.webp)
![Mean metabolic ratio of 8-OH [±95% confidence intervals (CI)] at different time intervals in control and treatment groups following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Panels show 8-OH ratios at A, day 3; B, day 7; C, day 28 post-trauma (n = 3 per group); and D, illustrates the comparative trend of 8-OH metabolic ratios over 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. CYP2D6-dependent metabolism of mirtazapine (8-OH formation) was markedly suppressed at day 3 (P < 0.001, η² = 0.38), showed partial recovery at day 7 (P < 0.01, η² = 0.29), and remained significantly lower than control at day 28 in non-supplemented groups (P < 0.05, η² = 0.22). Supplemented groups demonstrated accelerated metabolic recovery approaching baseline levels. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 vs. control group Mean metabolic ratio of 8-OH [±95% confidence intervals (CI)] at different time intervals in control and treatment groups following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Panels show 8-OH ratios at A, day 3; B, day 7; C, day 28 post-trauma (n = 3 per group); and D, illustrates the comparative trend of 8-OH metabolic ratios over 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc comparisons. CYP2D6-dependent metabolism of mirtazapine (8-OH formation) was markedly suppressed at day 3 (P < 0.001, η² = 0.38), showed partial recovery at day 7 (P < 0.01, η² = 0.29), and remained significantly lower than control at day 28 in non-supplemented groups (P < 0.05, η² = 0.22). Supplemented groups demonstrated accelerated metabolic recovery approaching baseline levels. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 vs. control group](https://brieflands.com/journals/ijpr/articles/164903/figures/ijpr-25-1-164903-i003-preview.webp)
![Mean metabolic ratio of M1 [±95% confidence intervals (CI)] at different time intervals following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in control and treatment groups (n = 3 per group). Panels show M1 ratios at A, day 3; B, day 7; C, day 28 post-trauma; and D, displays the comparative trend of M1 metabolic ratios over 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. CYP2D6 activity, reflected by M1 metabolic ratio, was significantly reduced at day 3 in mTBI rats compared to controls (P < 0.01, η² = 0.32), partially restored by day 7 (P < 0.05, η² = 0.24), and returned to or exceeded baseline levels by day 28 in supplemented groups (P < 0.05, η² = 0.27). * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 vs. control group Mean metabolic ratio of M1 [±95% confidence intervals (CI)] at different time intervals following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in control and treatment groups (n = 3 per group). Panels show M1 ratios at A, day 3; B, day 7; C, day 28 post-trauma; and D, displays the comparative trend of M1 metabolic ratios over 28 days. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. CYP2D6 activity, reflected by M1 metabolic ratio, was significantly reduced at day 3 in mTBI rats compared to controls (P < 0.01, η² = 0.32), partially restored by day 7 (P < 0.05, η² = 0.24), and returned to or exceeded baseline levels by day 28 in supplemented groups (P < 0.05, η² = 0.27). * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 vs. control group](https://brieflands.com/journals/ijpr/articles/164903/figures/ijpr-25-1-164903-i004-preview.webp)