Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of Drugs for Neurodegenerative Diseases: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Menéndez-González Manuel
,
Bogdan-Ionel Tamba
,
Maxime Leclere
,
Mostafa Mabrouk
,
Thomas-Gabriel Schreiner
,
Romeo Ciobanu
,
Tomás-Zapico Cristina

Intrathecal pseudodelivery of drugs is a novel route to administer medications to treat neurodegenerative diseases based on the CSF-sink therapeutic strategy by means of implantable devices. 

  • drug delivery
  • neurodegenerative diseases
  • membranes

1. Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of Drugs: Concept, Advantages, and Disadvantages

Therapeutics such as enzymes, antibodies, and even transport proteins (e.g., albumin), which are mostly intended to link with molecular targets to be removed from the organism, do not really need to be released in the fluid or tissue to action. In fact, binding to the molecular target can be achieved regardless of the compartment. With this in mind, IT pseudodelivery of drugs is a novel concept to administer drugs to treat CNS conditions relying on the CSF-sink therapeutic strategy [1], by means of implantable DDS to put in touch therapeutics with molecular targets inside of the device, without delivering to the biological fluid (hence the name “pseudo”-delivery). 
Functional nanoporous materials are an important class of nanostructured materials because of their tunable porosity and pore geometry (size, shape, and distribution) and their unique chemical and physical properties. Progress in developing a broad spectrum of nanoporous materials has accelerated their use for extensive applications in biomedical fields [2]. Nanoporous membranes are natural or synthetic membranes that can be made from a variety of materials and can be fabricated in different configurations including pore size, surface coating, geometry, and pore distribution, providing unique mass transport characteristics that have numerous potential biological and medical applications that involve isolating, sorting, sensing, and releasing biological molecules. Nanoporous membranes are of great interest in drug delivery because they offer a secure delivery system for medications and stop bodily enzymes from breaking them down and because they can be tailored-made and fine-tuned for precise control of the rate of drug delivery or to exquisitely adjust the selective molecular permeability [3][4]. While a few years ago there were technical challenges for the successful application of nanoporous membranes to controlled drug delivery applications—including the need for biocompatibility, the reduction of risk of infections, and the reduction of risk of biofouling [5] most of these challenges have already been overcome and solutions are now being optimized [6][7]. Nanoporous membranes can be used as stand-alone DDS or assembled into complex DDS.
IT pseudodelivery is the first DDS to be endowed with nanoporous membranes acting on the CNS [6][8][9]. Devices for IT pseudodelivery of drugs look similar to intrathecal pumps as they also have a subcutaneous reservoir and an intrathecal catheter accessing the CSF. However, they are not necessarily endowed with electromechanical pumps. The mechanism of action depends on the use of nanoporous membranes enabling selective molecular permeability [6][9]. On one side, the membranes do not allow crossing of drugs, but on the other side, they allow crossing of the target molecules present in the CSF. Target molecules bind drugs inside the system, thus being trapped or cleaved and eliminated from the CNS. Drugs are not released from the reservoir to the organism, and they can be replaced as needed percutaneously through self-sealing septa in the reservoir.
Not every target molecule or drug is suitable to be targeted/used via pseudodelivery. For a disease to be suitable to be treated using IT pseudodelivery, three conditions must be met:
  • A target molecule should be present in the CSF (soluble). This should be identified as potentially “toxic” or “pathogenic” and involved directly (aggregating proteins) or indirectly (mediators) in the physiopathology of the disease.
  • A drug acting specifically on the target molecule is needed. This can be an antibody, an aptamer, an enzyme, or any other compound that has specificity over the target molecule and either binds or cleaves the target molecule.
  • A significant size difference should exist between the target and drug molecules. While other physicochemical features may also play a role (such as electrostatic charge), the size difference is the main feature driving the selective molecular permeability through nanoporous membranes.
While the development of this therapy is still in the preclinical stage, it offers promising advantages over traditional routes of delivery. Being target-selective provides advantages over other CSF clearance systems since the level of other proteins —not involved in disease pathogenesis—would be preserved. It also provides important advantages over “standard” peripherally administered drugs, including the following: 1. Acting continuously, on the CSF directly, is expected to be much more effective than acting peripherally. 2. Immunoisolation of drugs impedes immune responses, fully avoiding immunologically mediated side effects reported with biological drugs systemically administered [8][9].
In contrast, potential adverse effects related to the intrathecal system implantation and functioning should be taken into consideration, with expected local complications similar to those seen with intrathecal pumps, such as CSF leak, hemorrhage, and infection, along with device-derived problems such as CSF flow obstruction or even device disconnection [8][9].

2. Potential Applications of Intrathecal Pseudodelivery of Drugs: Diseases, Targets, and Relevant Drugs

The field of disease-modifying therapies for NDD is one of the hottest topics in medicine nowadays. Despite a myriad of studies, no effective disease-modifying treatment is available at the present for most of these conditions [10] while the first disease-modifying therapies for AD have been recently approved with some controversy regarding their efficacy and safety [11][12]. However, much knowledge has been accumulated regarding the molecules and cellular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of NDD that can become valuable targets for future therapies. Different classes of therapeutics are suitable to be used via intrathecal pseudodelivery in the treatment of NDD. Table 1 summarizes the most relevant NDD, their known molecular targets, and the therapeutic agents proposed to be applied through this route, based on previous evidence on the drugs’ mechanism of action. There is little research testing IT pseudodelivery in these conditions yet, hence this list should be considered just as therapeutic hypotheses today.
Table 1. Summary of the potential molecular targets and the proposed classes of therapeutic agents to be administered via IT pseudodelivery for the most relevant neurodegenerative diseases.
Neurodegenerative Disease Molecular Target Proposed Classes of Therapeutic Agents
Alzheimer’s disease Aβ mAbs, aptamers [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
Enzymes [15]
Albumin [16][17]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [16][17][18][19]
Tau protein mAbs, aptamers [20][21]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [22][23]
sTREM2 mAbs, aptamers [24][25]
IL-6 mAbs [26]
TNF-α fusion protein by recombinant DNA, mAb [27][28][29][30]
Parkinson’s disease and Dementia with Lewy bodies α-synuclein mAbs, aptamers [21][31][32][33]
Enzymes [34]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [18][35]
IL-6 mAbs [36]
TNF-α mAbs [37]
Multisystem Atrophy α-synuclein mAbs, aptamers [21][31][32][33]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [18][35]
Enzymes [34]
Progressive supranuclear palsy Tau mAbs, aptamers [38][39]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [40]
Frontotemporal dementia TDP43 mAbs, aptamers [41]
Tau protein mAbs, aptamers [20]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [40]
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis SOD mAbs, aptamers [21]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [21][42][43]
TDP43 mAbs, aptamers [44]
Enzymes [45]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [46][47]
Tau protein mAbs, aptamers [20]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [40]
IL-6 mAbs [48]
TNF-α mAbs [49][50]
Huntington’s disease and other diseases caused by polynucleotide-mutated repeats mutant HTT protein and other polyQ-mutated proteins mAbs, aptamers [51]
Protein conformation stabilizers and aggregation inhibitors [52][53]
Abbreviations: mAbs—monoclonal antibodies, SOD—superoxide dismutase, sTREM2—soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2, Aβ—beta-amyloid, TNF-α—tumor necrosis factor α, IL-6—Interleukin 6.
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against misfolded proteins such as Aβ, Tau protein, or α-synuclein are a first choice when considering IT pseudodelivery, as they have been demonstrated to be effective when administered intravenously in many studies [54]. Moreover, mAbs targeting Aβ were approved very recently for the treatment of AD in humans (see Aducanumab [13] and Lecanemab [11]). mAbs is the only class of therapeutics with in vivo studies published via intrathecal pseudodelivery, which showed feasibility, good safety, and histological efficacy in animal models of AD [8][9]. Aptamers are an interesting class of compound that could replace antibodies in the near future, as they can also be used for therapeutic purposes within the pseudodelivery device. Compared to currently available mAbs, aptamers have some advantages such as a smaller size and mass, lower immunogenicity, greater replicability, and a greater level of control (high durability, sensitivity, and specificity) [14]. Similarly, antibodies and aptamers binding other pathogenic proteins such as Alpha-syn, Tau, TDP43, or mutant HTT might be of interest to treat other NDD via the pseudodelivery route, even if they failed when systemically administered for safety or efficacy reasons [20][21][31][32][33][39][41][51].
Other molecules binding pathogenic proteins can be of interest. For instance, human serum albumin (HSA) is a natural buffer of Aβ. A promising approach to AD prevention is to reduce the concentration of free Aβ by targeted stimulation of the interaction between HSA and Aβ. This approach can be implemented by pseudodelivering albumin alone [16] or in combination with agents increasing the affinity of HSA to Aβ through the action of HSA ligands [17].
Another therapeutic possibility is to act on the enzymatic dysfunction, a relevant example being the switch from the non-amyloidogenic pathway to the amyloidogenic one in AD [55]. In the same manner, compensating for the malfunctioning enzymes or even using different enzymes (from the family of membrane metallo-endopeptidases such as neprilysin and other Aβ cleaving enzymes [15]) inside the pseudodelivery device can be a smart option considering the high CSF throughput.
Protein conformation stabilization and aggregation inhibition that targets the upstream of the insoluble aggregate formation would be a promising approach toward the development of disease-modifying therapies for most NDD, particularly for polyQ diseases. PolyQ aggregation inhibitors of different chemical categories, such as intrabodies, peptides, and small chemical compounds, have been identified through intensive screening methods [52][53]. Among them, those with high molecular sizes are suitable to be used via IT pseudodelivery. The same approach could be used to inhibit the aggregation of Aβ, Tau, alpha-synuclein, SOD, and TDP43 [18][22][35][46][47][49][56]. In addition, clearing cofactors promoting protein aggregation, such as iron or tyrosine kinase, are an alternative way of inhibiting protein aggregation [57]. Interestingly, some nanomaterials such as polyoxometalates may also work as inhibitors of amyloid aggregation [19] and might be suitable to be used as therapeutic agents through this route.
Finally, another clear target in NDD are molecules involved in inflammation such as anti-TNF-α. According to several reports, anti-TNF-α agents may affect amyloidosis in inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and familial Mediterranean fever [57]. Indeed, perispinal administration of the anti-TNF-α medication etanercept (a fusion protein produced by recombinant DNA) has been reported effective in cognitive improvement in one single case report [27], and similar results were obtained in animal studies [58]. Comparable results were noticed for infliximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of multiple autoimmune diseases such as Crohn’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis. A study indicated that intracerebroventricular administration of infliximab reduced Aβ plaques and tau phosphorylation in APP/PS1 mice [28] and resulted in cognitive improvement in a human case [29], while recent research confirms the protective cerebral effects (reduced microgliosis, neuronal loss, and tau phosphorylation) of TNF-α inhibitors in a transgenic mouse model of tauopathy [50]. These results are encouraging, indicating that IT infliximab offers an alternative therapeutic approach for AD, and potentially for other neurodegenerative disorders whose pathogenesis involves TNF-α such as PD [37] and ALS [49]. Clinical trials for different conditions have shown a detrimental effect of TNF-α antagonists in advanced heart failure and anti-TNFs are associated with an increased risk of infection. Rare case reports of drug-induced lupus, seizure disorder, pancytopenia, and demyelinating diseases have been noted after systemic treatment with TNF-α antagonists [59][60]. Meanwhile, chronic dosing with a brain-penetrant biologic TNF-inhibitor induced hematology and iron dysregulation in aged APP/PS1 mice [30]. In this regard, IT pseudodelivery of anti-TNF-α agents may offer a safer route of administration.
Drugs targeting the complement component C5, CD19 on B cells, and the inter-leukin-6 (IL-6) receptor, have been used for the treatment of patients with refractory inflammatory CNS diseases. Particularly, Tocilizumab, a humanized, monoclonal antibody against the IL-6 receptor, has been tested for neurologic indications, such as neuromyelitis optica [61] or primary CNS vasculitis [62]. Tocilizumab has also been tested in ALS [48] and proposed in PD [36] and AD [26] As IL-6 is present in the CSF, monoclonal antibodies binding IL-6 directly—such as HZ-0408b [63]—via IT pseudodelivery might be an alternative route to target inflammation in NDD.
Lastly, a TREM2-activating antibody with a BBB transport vehicle enhances microglial metabolism in AD models [24] and tau pathology and neurodegeneration are associated with an increase in CSF sTREM2 [25]. However, some of these experiments can be interpreted as full-length TREM2 protecting rather than sTREM2 [64]. Therefore, while sTREM2 might be a suitable target via IT pseudodelivery in AD, more knowledge is needed to understand how, when, and in what cases this target might be of interest.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/pharmaceutics15030768

References

  1. Schreiner, T.G.; Menéndez-González, M.; Popescu, B.O. The “Cerebrospinal Fluid Sink Therapeutic Strategy” in Alzheimer’s Disease-From Theory to Design of Applied Systems. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1509.
  2. Hadden, M.; Martinez-Martin, D.; Yong, K.-T.; Ramaswamy, Y.; Singh, G. Recent Advancements in the Fabrication of Functional Nanoporous Materials and Their Biomedical Applications. Materials 2022, 15, 2111.
  3. Kapruwan, P.; Ferré-Borrull, J.; Marsal, L.F. Nanoporous Anodic Alumina Platforms for Drug Delivery Applications: Recent Advances and Perspective. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 7, 33.
  4. Mabrouk, M.; Rajendran, R.; Soliman, I.E.; Ashour, M.M.; Beherei, H.H.; Tohamy, K.M.; Thomas, S.; Kalarikkal, N.; Arthanareeswaran, G.; Das, D.B. Nanoparticle- and nanoporous-membrane-mediated delivery of therapeutics. Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 294.
  5. Voskerician, G.; Shive, M.S.; Shawgo, R.S.; von Recum, H.; Anderson, J.M.; Cima, M.J.; Langer, R. Biocompatibility and biofouling of MEMS drug delivery devices. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 1959–1967.
  6. Schreiner, T.G.; Tamba, B.I.; Mihai, C.T.; Lőrinczi, A.; Baibarac, M.; Ciobanu, R.C.; Popescu, B.O. Clinical Medicine Nanoporous Membranes for the Filtration of Proteins from Biological Fluids: Biocompatibility Tests on Cell Cultures and Suggested Applications for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 2022, 5846.
  7. Mabrouk, M.; Das, D.B.; Salem, Z.A.; Beherei, H.H. Nanomaterials for biomedical applications: Production, characterisations, recent trends and difficulties. Molecules 2021, 26, 1077.
  8. Coto-Vilcapoma, M.A.; Castilla-Silgado, J.; Fernández-García, B.; Pinto-Hernández, P.; Cipriani, R.; Capetillo-Zarate, E.; Menéndez-González, M.; Álvarez-Vega, M.; Tomás-Zapico, C. New, Fully Implantable Device for Selective Clearance of CSF-Target Molecules: Proof of Concept in a Murine Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9256.
  9. Menendez-Gonzalez, M.; Vilcapoma, A.C.; Silgado, J.C.; Alvarez-Vega, M.; Antuña-Ramos, A.; Fernandez-Garcia, B.; Prado, C.; Alvarez, G.; Rodriguez, M.; Perez, E.; et al. Intrathecal pseudodelivery of Ab-mAb alleviates pathology in an Alzheimer’s disease model. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022, 18, e068697.
  10. Mortada, I.; Farah, R.; Nabha, S.; Ojcius, D.M.; Fares, Y.; Almawi, W.Y.; Sadier, N.S. Immunotherapies for Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front. Neurol. 2021, 12, 654739.
  11. van Dyck, C.H.; Swanson, C.J.; Aisen, P.; Bateman, R.J.; Chen, C.; Gee, M.; Kanekiyo, M.; Li, D.; Reyderman, L.; Cohen, S.; et al. Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer’s Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2023, 388, 9–21.
  12. Perneczky, R.; Jessen, F.; Grimmer, T.; Levin, J.; Flöel, A.; Peters, O.; Froelich, L. Anti-amyloid antibody therapies in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2023, awad005.
  13. Tampi, R.R.; Forester, B.P.; Agronin, M. Aducanumab: Evidence from clinical trial data and controversies. Drugs Context 2021, 10, 1–9.
  14. Byun, J. Recent progress and opportunities for nucleic acid aptamers. Life 2021, 11, 193.
  15. Kato, D.; Takahashi, Y.; Iwata, H.; Hatakawa, Y.; Lee, S.H.; Oe, T. Comparative studies for amyloid beta degradation: “Neprilysin vs. insulysin”, “monomeric vs. aggregate”, and “whole Aβ40 vs. its peptide fragments. Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2022, 30, 101268.
  16. Menendez-Gonzalez, M.; Gasparovic, C. Albumin exchange in Alzheimer’s disease: Might CSF be an alternative route to plasma? Front. Neurol. 2019, 10, 1036.
  17. Loktyushov Ev Litus, E.A.; Deryusheva, E.I. Systematic search for peptide and protein ligands of human serum albumin capable of affecting its interaction with amyloid-p peptide. Acta Biomed. Sci. 2022, 7, 19–26.
  18. Murray, K.A.; Hu, C.J.; Griner, S.L.; Pan, H.; Bowler, J.T.; Abskharon, R.; Rosenberg, G.M.; Cheng, X.; Seidler, P.M.; Eisenberg, D.S. De novo designed protein inhibitors of amyloid aggregation and seeding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022, 119, e2206240119.
  19. Chaudhary, H.; Iashchishyn, I.A.; Romanova, N.v.; Rambaran, M.A.; Musteikyte, G.; Smirnovas, V.; Holmboe, M.; Ohlin, C.A.; Svedružić, Ž.M.; Morozova-Roche, L.A. Polyoxometalates as Effective Nano-inhibitors of Amyloid Aggregation of Pro-inflammatory S100A9 Protein Involved in Neurodegenerative Diseases. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13, 26721–26734.
  20. Ji, C.; Sigurdsson, E.M. Current Status of Clinical Trials on Tau Immunotherapies. Drugs 2021, 81, 1135–1152.
  21. Teng, E.; Manser, P.T.; Pickthorn, K.; Brunstein, F.; Blendstrup, M.; Sanabria Bohorquez, S.; Wildsmith, K.R.; Toth, B.; Dolton, M. Safety and Efficacy of Semorinemab in Individuals with Prodromal to Mild Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Neurol. 2022, 79, 758–767.
  22. Wischik, C.M.; Harrington, C.R.; Storey, J.M.D. Tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy for Alzheimer’s disease. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2014, 88, 529–539.
  23. Wischik, C.M.; Bentham, P.; Gauthier, S.; Miller, S.; Kook, K.; Schelter, B.O. Oral Tau Aggregation Inhibitor for Alzheimer’s Disease: Design, Progress and Basis for Selection of the 16 mg/day Dose in a Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Hydromethylthionine Mesylate. J. Prev. Alzheimers Dis. 2022, 9, 780–790.
  24. van Lengerich, B.; Zhan, L.; Xia, D.; Chan, D.; Joy, D.; Park, J.I.; Tatarakis, D.; Calvert, M.; Hummel, S.; Lianoglou, S.; et al. A TREM2-activating antibody with a blood–brain barrier transport vehicle enhances microglial metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease models. Nat. Neurosci. 2023, 1–14.
  25. Ma, L.Z.; Tan, L.; Bi, Y.L.; Shen, X.N.; Xu, W.; Ma, Y.H.; Li, H.Q.; Dong, Q.; Yu, J.T. Dynamic changes of CSF sTREM2 in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: The CABLE study. Mol. Neurodegener. 2020, 15, 1–9.
  26. Elcioğlu, H.K.; Aslan, E.; Ahmad, S.; Alan, S.; Salva, E.; Elcioglu, Ö.H.; Kabasakal, L. Tocilizumab’s effect on cognitive deficits induced by intracerebroventricular administration of streptozotocin in Alzheimer’s model. Mol. Cell Biochem. 2016, 420, 21–28.
  27. Tobinick, E.L.; Gross, H. Rapid cognitive improvement in Alzheimer’s disease following perispinal etanercept administration. J. Neuroinflamm. 2008, 5, 2.
  28. Shi, J.Q.; Shen, W.; Chen, J.; Wang, B.R.; Zhong, L.L.; Zhu, Y.W.; Zhu, H.Q.; Zhang, Q.Q.; Zhang, Y.D.; Xu, J. Anti-TNF-α reduces amyloid plaques and tau phosphorylation and induces CD11c-positive dendritic-like cell in the APP/PS1 transgenic mouse brains. Brain Res. 2011, 1368, 239–247.
  29. Shi, J.Q.; Wang, B.R.; Jiang, W.W.; Chen, J.; Zhu, Y.W.; Zhong, L.L.; Zhang, Y.D.; Xu, J. Cognitive improvement with intrathecal administration of infliximab in a woman with Alzheimer’s disease. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2011, 59, 1142–1144.
  30. Ou, W.; Ohno, Y.; Yang, J.; Chandrashekar, D.V.; Abdullah, T.; Sun, J.; Murphy, R.; Roules, C.; Jagadeesan, N.; Cribbs, D.H.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of a Brain-Penetrant Biologic TNF-α Inhibitor in Aged APP/PS1 Mice. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 2200.
  31. Menéndez-González, M.; Padilla-Zambrano, H.S.; Tomás-Zapico, C.; García, B.F. Clearing extracellular alpha-synuclein from cerebrospinal fluid: A new therapeutic strategy in parkinson’s disease. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 52.
  32. Pagano, G.; Taylor, K.I.; Anzures-Cabrera, J.; Marchesi, M.; Simuni, T.; Marek, K.; Postuma, R.B.; Pavese, N.; Stocchi, F.; Azulay, J.P.; et al. Trial of Prasinezumab in Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 421–432.
  33. Schenk, D.B.; Koller, M.; Ness, D.K.; Griffith, S.G.; Grundman, M.; Zago, W.; Soto, J.; Atiee, G.; Ostrowitzki, S.; Kinney, G.G. First-in-human assessment of PRX002, an anti–α-synuclein monoclonal antibody, in healthy volunteers. Mov. Disord. 2017, 32, 16428896.
  34. Bluhm, A.; Schrempel, S.; von Hörsten, S.; Schulze, A.; Roßner, S. Proteolytic α-synuclein cleavage in health and disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5450.
  35. Das, S.; Pukala, T.L.; Smid, S.D. Exploring the structural diversity in inhibitors of α-Synuclein amyloidogenic folding, aggregation, and neurotoxicity. Front. Chem. 2018, 6, 181.
  36. Pons-Espinal, M.; Blasco-Agell, L.; Fernandez-Carasa, I.; di Domenico, A.; Richaud, Y.; Mosquera, J.L.; Marruecos, L.; Espinosa, L.; Garrido, A.; Tolosa, E.; et al. Immunosuppressive Tocilizumab Prevents Astrocyte Induced Neurotoxicity in HiPSC-LRRK2 Parkinson’s Disease by Targeting Receptor Interleukin-6. bioRxiv. 2022. Available online: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2022/08/25/2022.08.23.504918.abstract (accessed on 10. January 2023).
  37. El-Kattan, M.M.; Rashed, L.A.; Shazly, S.R.; Ismail, R.S. Relation of serum level of tumor necrosis factor-alpha to cognitive functions in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Egypt. J. Neurol. Psychiatry Neurosurg. 2022, 58, 1–7.
  38. Dam, T.; Boxer, A.L.; Golbe, L.I.; Höglinger, G.U.; Morris, H.R.; Litvan, I.; Lang, A.E.; Corvol, J.C.; Aiba, I.; Grundman, M.; et al. Safety and efficacy of anti-tau monoclonal antibody gosuranemab in progressive supranuclear palsy: A phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 1451–1457.
  39. Höglinger, G.U.; Litvan, I.; Mendonca, N.; Wang, D.; Zheng, H.; Rendenbach-Mueller, B.; Lon, H.K.; Jin, Z.; Fisseha, N.; Budur, K.; et al. Safety and efficacy of tilavonemab in progressive supranuclear palsy: A phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2021, 20, 182–192.
  40. Soeda, Y.; Takashima, A. New Insights Into Drug Discovery Targeting Tau Protein. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2020, 13, 590896.
  41. Francois-Moutal, L.; Scott, D.D.; Khanna, M. Direct targeting of TDP-43, from small molecules to biologics: The therapeutic landscape. RSC Chem. Biol. 2021, 2, 1158–1166.
  42. Samanta, N.; Ruiz-Blanco, Y.B.; Fetahaj, Z.; Gnutt, D.; Lantz, C.; Loo, J.A.; Sanchez-Garcia, E.; Ebbinghaus, S. Superoxide Dismutase 1 Folding Stability as a Target for Molecular Tweezers in SOD1-Related Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. ChemBioChem 2022, 23, e202200396.
  43. Chantadul, V.; Wright, G.S.A.; Amporndanai, K.; Shahid, M.; Antonyuk, S.V.; Washbourn, G.; Rogers, M.; Roberts, N.; Pye, M.; O-Neill, P.M.; et al. Ebselen as template for stabilization of A4V mutant dimer for motor neuron disease therapy. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 1–10.
  44. Pozzi, S.; Codron, P.; Soucy, G.; Renaud, L.; Cordeau, P.J.; Dutta, K.; Bareil, C.; Julien, J.P. Monoclonal full-length antibody against TAR DNA binding protein 43 reduces related proteinopathy in neurons. JCI Insight 2020, 5, 140420.
  45. Li, Q.; Yokoshi, M.; Okada, H.; Kawahara, Y. The cleavage pattern of TDP-43 determines its rate of clearance and cytotoxicity. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6183.
  46. Prasad, A.; Bharathi, V.; Sivalingam, V.; Girdhar, A.; Patel, B.K. Molecular mechanisms of TDP-43 misfolding and pathology in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2019, 12, 25.
  47. Malik, R.; Wiedau, M. Therapeutic Approaches Targeting Protein Aggregation in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2020, 13, 98.
  48. Milligan, C.; Atassi, N.; Babu, S.; Barohn, R.J.; Caress, J.B.; Cudkowicz, M.E.; Evora, A.; Hawkins, G.A.; Wosiski-Kuhn, M.; Macklin, E.A.; et al. Tocilizumab is safe and tolerable and reduces C-reactive protein concentrations in the plasma and cerebrospinal fluid of ALS patients. Muscle Nerve 2021, 64, 309–320.
  49. Wood, H. TNF—a potential therapeutic target for ALS. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 2022, 18, 317.
  50. Ou, W.; Yang, J.; Simanauskaite, J.; Choi, M.; Castellanos, D.M.; Chang, R.; Sun, J.; Jagadeesan, N.; Parfitt, K.D.; Cribbs, D.H.; et al. Biologic TNF-α inhibitors reduce microgliosis, neuronal loss, and tau phosphorylation in a transgenic mouse model of tauopathy. J. Neuroinflammation 2021, 18, 1–19.
  51. Bartl, S.; Oueslati, A.; Southwell, A.L.; Siddu, A.; Parth, M.; David, L.S.; Maxan, A.; Salhat, N.; Burkert, M.; Mairhofer, A.; et al. Inhibiting cellular uptake of mutant huntingtin using a monoclonal antibody: Implications for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2020, 141, 104943.
  52. Margulis, B.A.; Vigont, V.; Lazarev, V.F.; Kaznacheyeva, E.V.; Guzhova, I.V. Pharmacological protein targets in polyglutamine diseases: Mutant polypeptides and their interactors. FEBS Lett. 2013, 587, 1997–2007.
  53. Minakawa, E.N.; Nagai, Y. Protein Aggregation Inhibitors as Disease-Modifying Therapies for Polyglutamine Diseases. Front. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 621996.
  54. Sirbu, C.; Ghinescu, M.; Axelerad, A.; Sirbu, A.M.; Ionita-Radu, F. A new era for monoclonal antibodies with applications in neurology (Review). Exp. Ther. Med. 2020, 21, 1.
  55. Hampel, H.; Hardy, J.; Blennow, K.; Chen, C.; Perry, G.; Kim, S.H.; Villemagne, V.L.; Aisen, P.; Vendruscolo, M.; Iwatsubo, T.; et al. The Amyloid-β Pathway in Alzheimer’s Disease. Mol. Psychiatry. 2021, 26, 5481–5503.
  56. Pasieka, A.; Panek, D.; Szałaj, N.; Espargaró, A.; Więckowska, A.; Malawska, B.; Sabaté, R.; Bajda, M. Dual Inhibitors of Amyloid-β and Tau Aggregation with Amyloid-β Disaggregating Properties: Extended in Cellulo, in Silico, and Kinetic Studies of Multifunctional Anti-Alzheimer’s Agents. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2021, 12, 2057–2068.
  57. Jang, D.I.; Lee, A.H.; Shin, H.Y.; Song, H.R.; Park, J.H.; Kang, T.B.; Lee, S.R.; Yang, S.H. The role of tumor necrosis factor alpha (Tnf-α) in autoimmune disease and current tnf-α inhibitors in therapeutics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 2719.
  58. Chang, R.; Yee, K.-L.; Sumbria, R.K. Tumor necrosis factor α Inhibition for Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Cent. Nerv. Syst. Dis. 2017, 9, 1179573517709278.
  59. Hu, Y.; Huang, Z.; Yang, S.; Chen, X.; Su, W.; Liang, D. Effectiveness and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha agents treatment in behcets’ disease-associated uveitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 941.
  60. Khanna, D.; McMahon, M.; Furst, D.E. Safety of tumour necrosis factor-α antagonists. Drug Saf. 2004, 27, 307–324.
  61. Carreón Guarnizo, E.; Hernández Clares, R.; Castillo Triviño, T.; Meca Lallana, V.; Arocas Casañ, V.; Iniesta Martínez, F.; Olascoaga Urtaza, J.; Meca Lallana, J.E. Experience with tocilizumab in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurol. (Engl. Ed.) 2022, 37, S0213–S4853.
  62. Cabreira, V.; Dias, L.; Fernandes, B.; Aires, A.; Guimarães, J.; Abreu, P.; Azevedo, E. Tocilizumab for severe refractory primary central nervous system vasculitis: A center experience. Acta Neurol. Scand. 2022, 145, 479–483.
  63. Liu, X.; Li, L.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, F.; Zhang, P.; Guo, F.; Liu, H.; Huang, J. A Novel Humanized Anti-Interleukin-6 Antibody HZ0408b With Anti-Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapeutic Potential. Front. Immunol. 2022, 12, 816646.
  64. Brown, G.C.; St George-Hyslop, P. Does Soluble TREM2 Protect Against Alzheimer’s Disease? Front. Aging Neurosci. 2022, 13, 834697.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback