Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33935624›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021

Large-Volume Intrathecal Administrations: Impact on CSF Pressure and Safety Implications.

Vasily Belov, Janine Appleton, Stepan Levin, Pilar Giffenig, Beata Durcanova, Mikhail Papisov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Blockage of CSF Outflow in Rats after Deep Cervical Lymph Node Ligation Observed Using Gd-based MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A perspective: neuraxial therapeutics in pain management: now and future.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vasily BelovMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Janine AppletonMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Stepan LevinMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Pilar GiffenigMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Beata DurcanovaMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Mikhail PapisovMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHarvard University · USShriners Hospitals for Children - Boston · US

Funding

Factors of cerebrospinal drug transportR01NS092838 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI PAPISOV, MIKHAIL I · 2015 to 2017
$1.5M
Investigation of solute transport from the cerebrospinal fluid to CNSR21NS090049 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI PAPISOV, MIKHAIL I · 2014 to 2015
$479k
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS092838NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS090049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing number of studies demonstrates the high potency of the intrathecal (IT) route for the delivery of biopharmaceuticals to the central nervous system (CNS). Our earlier data exhibited that both the infused volume and the infusion rate can regulate the initial disposition of the administered solute within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). This disposition is one of key factors in defining the subsequent transport of the solute to its intended target. On the other hand, fast additions of large volumes of liquid to the CSF inevitably raise the CSF pressure [a.k.a. intracranial pressure (ICP)], which may in turn lead to adverse reactions if the physiologically delimited threshold is exceeded. While long-term biological effects of elevated ICP (hydrocephalus) are known, the safety thresholds pertaining to short-term ICP elevations caused by IT administrations have not yet been characterized. This study aimed to investigate the dynamics of ICP in rats and non-human primates (NHPs) with respect to IT infusion rates and volumes. The safety regimes were estimated and analyzed across species to facilitate the development of translational large-volume IT therapies. The data revealed that the addition of a liquid to the CSF raised the ICP in a rate and volume-dependent manner. At low infusion rates (<0.12 ml/min in rats and <2 ml/min in NHPs), NHPs and rats displayed similar tolerance patterns. Specifically, safe accommodations of such added volumes were mainly facilitated by the accelerated pressure-dependent CSF drainage into the blood, with I stabilizing at different levels below the safety threshold of 28 ± 4 mm Hg in rats and 50 ± 5 mm Hg in NHPs. These ICPs were safely tolerated for extended durations (of at least 2-25 min). High infusion rates (including boluses) caused uncompensated exponential ICP elevations rapidly exceeding the safety thresholds. Their tolerance was species-dependent and was facilitated by the compensatory role of the varied components of craniospinal compliance while not excluding the possibility of other contributing factors. In conclusion, large volumes of liquids can safely be delivered via IT routes provided that ICP is monitored as a safety factor and cross-species physiological differences are accounted for.

Indexed as

central nervous systemcerebrospinal fluidcraniospinal complianceintracranial pressureintrathecal deliverymacromoleculessafetysubarachnoid

Identifiers

PMID33935624
PMCPMC8079755
OpenAlexW3034445344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.