M J Fowler1, J D Cotter1, B E Knight1, E M Sevick-Muraca2, D I Sandberg3, R W Sirianni4. 1. Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School/University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America. 2. Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, Center for Molecular Imaging, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America. 3. Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School/University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America; Department of Pediatric Surgery, McGovern Medical School/University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America; Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United States of America. 4. Vivian L. Smith Department of Neurosurgery, McGovern Medical School/University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX 77030, United States of America. Electronic address: Rachael.w.sirianni@uth.tmc.edu.
Abstract
Administration of substances directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that surrounds the brain and spinal cord is one approach that can circumvent the blood-brain barrier to enable drug delivery to the central nervous system (CNS). However, molecules that have been administered by intrathecal injection, which includes intraventricular, intracisternal, or lumbar locations, encounter new barriers within the subarachnoid space. These barriers include relatively high rates of turnover as CSF clears and potentially inadequate delivery to tissue or cellular targets. Nanomedicine could offer a solution. In contrast to the fate of freely administered drugs, nanomedicine systems can navigate the subarachnoid space to sustain delivery of therapeutic molecules, genes, and imaging agents within the CNS. Some evidence suggests that certain nanomedicine agents can reach the parenchyma following intrathecal administration. Here, we will address the preclinical and clinical use of intrathecal nanomedicine, including nanoparticles, microparticles, dendrimers, micelles, liposomes, polyplexes, and other colloidalal materials that function to alter the distribution of molecules in tissue. Our review forms a foundational understanding of drug delivery to the CSF that can be built upon to better engineer nanomedicine for intrathecal treatment of disease.
Administration of substances directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) that surrounds the brain and spinal cord is one apn>proach that can circumvent the blood-brain barrier to enable drug delivery to the central nervous system (CNS). However, molecules that have been administered by intpan class="Species">rathecal injection, which includes intraventricular, intracisternal, or lumbar locations, encounter new barriers within the subarachnoid space. These barriers include relatively high rates of turnover as CSF clears and potentially inadequate delivery to tissue or cellular targets. Nanomedicine could offer a solution. In contrast to the fate of freely administered drugs, nanomedicine systems can navigate the subarachnoid space to sustain delivery of therapeutic molecules, genes, and imaging agents within the CNS. Some evidence suggests that certain nanomedicine agents can reach the parenchyma following intrathecal administration. Here, we will address the preclinical and clinical use of intrathecal nanomedicine, including nanoparticles, microparticles, dendrimers, micelles, liposomes, polyplexes, and other colloidalal materials that function to alter the distribution of molecules in tissue. Our review forms a foundational understanding of drug delivery to the CSF that can be built upon to better engineer nanomedicine for intrathecal treatment of disease.
Authors: Rebecca L Cook; Kyle T Householder; Eugene P Chung; Alesia V Prakapenka; Danielle M DiPerna; Rachael W Sirianni Journal: J Control Release Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Juan Eduardo Megías-Vericat; Ana García-Robles; María José Company-Albir; María José Fernández-Megía; Francisco Carlos Pérez-Miralles; Eduardo López-Briz; Bonaventura Casanova; José Luis Poveda Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: I Klejbor; E K Stachowiak; D J Bharali; I Roy; I Spodnik; J Morys; E J Bergey; P N Prasad; M K Stachowiak Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2007-06-19 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Michelle E Pizzo; Daniel J Wolak; Niyanta N Kumar; Eric Brunette; Christina L Brunnquell; Melanie-Jane Hannocks; N Joan Abbott; M Elizabeth Meyerand; Lydia Sorokin; Danica B Stanimirovic; Robert G Thorne Journal: J Physiol Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Shivanand Pudakalakatti; José S Enriquez; Caitlin McCowan; Saleh Ramezani; Jennifer S Davis; Niki M Zacharias; Dontrey Bourgeois; Pamela E Constantinou; Daniel A Harrington; Daniel Carson; Mary C Farach-Carson; Pratip K Bhattacharya Journal: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol Date: 2021-05-13
Authors: Herbert H Engelhard; Alexander J Willis; Syed I Hussain; Georgia Papavasiliou; David J Banner; Amanda Kwasnicki; Sajani S Lakka; Sangyeul Hwang; Tolou Shokuhfar; Sean C Morris; Bing Liu Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 4.003