Owen Lewis1, Max Woolley2, David Johnson2, Anne Rosser3, Neil U Barua2, Alison S Bienemann2, Steven S Gill2, Sam Evans4. 1. School of Medical Engineering, Queen's Building, Cardiff University, The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK; Functional Neurosurgery Research Group, University of Bristol, School of Clinical Sciences, Southmead Hospital, Learning & Research Building, UK; Cardiff School of Biosciences, The Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, UK. Electronic address: owen.lewis@renishaw.com. 2. Functional Neurosurgery Research Group, University of Bristol, School of Clinical Sciences, Southmead Hospital, Learning & Research Building, UK. 3. Cardiff School of Biosciences, The Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, UK. 4. School of Medical Engineering, Queen's Building, Cardiff University, The Parade, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraparenchymal convection-enhanced delivery (CED) of therapeutics directly into the brain has long been endorsed as a medium through which meaningful concentrations of drug can be administered to patients, bypassing the blood brain barrier. The translation of the technology to clinic has been hindered by poor distribution not previously observed in smaller pre-clinical models. In part this was due to the larger volumes of target structures found in humans but principally the poor outcome was linked to reflux (backflow) of infusate proximally along the catheter track. Over the past 10 years, improvements have been made to the technology in the field which has led to a small number of commercially available devices containing reflux inhibiting features. NEW METHOD: While these devices are currently suitable for acute or short term use, several indications would benefit from longer term repeated, intermittent administration of therapeutics (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Brain tumours such as Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) and Diffuse intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG), etc.). RESULTS: Despite the need for a chronically accessible platform for such indications, limited experience exists in this part of the field. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): At the time of writing no commercially available clinical platform, indicated for chronic, intermittent or continuous delivery to the brain exists. CONCLUSIONS: Here we review the improvements that have been made to CED devices over recent years and current state of the art for chronic infusion systems.
BACKGROUND: Intraparenchymal convection-enhanced delivery (CED) of therapeutics directly into the brain has long been endorsed as a medium through which meaningful concentrations of drug can be administered to patients, bypassing the blood brain barrier. The translation of the technology to clinic has been hindered by poor distribution not previously observed in smaller pre-clinical models. In part this was due to the larger volumes of target structures found in humans but principally the poor outcome was linked to reflux (backflow) of infusate proximally along the catheter track. Over the past 10 years, improvements have been made to the technology in the field which has led to a small number of commercially available devices containing reflux inhibiting features. NEW METHOD: While these devices are currently suitable for acute or short term use, several indications would benefit from longer term repeated, intermittent administration of therapeutics (Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Brain tumours such as Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) and Diffuse intrinsic Pontine Glioma (DIPG), etc.). RESULTS: Despite the need for a chronically accessible platform for such indications, limited experience exists in this part of the field. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): At the time of writing no commercially available clinical platform, indicated for chronic, intermittent or continuous delivery to the brain exists. CONCLUSIONS: Here we review the improvements that have been made to CED devices over recent years and current state of the art for chronic infusion systems.
Authors: Marco Antônio Peliky Fontes; Gisele Cristiane Vaz; Thais Zielke Dias Cardoso; Mariana Flávia de Oliveira; Maria José Campagnole-Santos; Robson Augusto Souza Dos Santos; Neeru M Sharma; Kaushik P Patel; Frédéric Frézard Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2017-12-24 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Canan Dagdeviren; Khalil B Ramadi; Pauline Joe; Kevin Spencer; Helen N Schwerdt; Hideki Shimazu; Sebastien Delcasso; Ken-Ichi Amemori; Carlos Nunez-Lopez; Ann M Graybiel; Michael J Cima; Robert Langer Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Saira Alli; Carlyn A Figueiredo; Brian Golbourn; Nesrin Sabha; Megan Yijun Wu; Andrew Bondoc; Amanda Luck; Daniel Coluccia; Colin Maslink; Christian Smith; Heiko Wurdak; Kullervo Hynynen; Meaghan O'Reilly; James T Rutka Journal: J Control Release Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Kert Mätlik; Helena Vihinen; Ali Bienemann; Jaan Palgi; Merja H Voutilainen; Sigrid Booms; Maria Lindahl; Eija Jokitalo; Mart Saarma; Henri J Huttunen; Mikko Airavaara; Urmas Arumäe Journal: eNeuro Date: 2017-02-20
Authors: Christopher M Proctor; Andrea Slézia; Attila Kaszas; Antoine Ghestem; Isabel Del Agua; Anna-Maria Pappa; Christophe Bernard; Adam Williamson; George G Malliaras Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 14.136