Free radicals are formed as a part of normal metabolic activities but are neutralized by the endogenous antioxidants present in cells/tissue, thus maintaining the redox balance. This redox balance is disrupted in certain neuropathophysiological conditions, causing oxidative stress, which is implicated in several progressive neurodegenerative diseases. Following neuronal injury, secondary injury progression is also caused by excessive production of free radicals. Highly reactive free radicals, mainly the reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS), damage the cell membrane, proteins, and DNA, which triggers a self-propagating inflammatory cascade of degenerative events. Dysfunctional mitochondria under oxidative stress conditions are considered a key mediator in progressive neurodegeneration. Exogenous delivery of antioxidants holds promise to alleviate oxidative stress to regain the redox balance. In this regard, natural and synthetic antioxidants have been evaluated. Despite promising results in preclinical studies, clinical translation of antioxidants as a therapy to treat neurodegenerative diseases remains elusive. The issues could be their low bioavailability, instability, limited transport to the target tissue, and/or poor antioxidant capacity, requiring repeated and high dosing, which cannot be administered to humans because of dose-limiting toxicity. Our laboratory is investigating nanoparticle-mediated delivery of antioxidant enzymes to address some of the above issues. Apart from being endogenous, the main advantage of antioxidant enzymes is their catalytic mechanism of action; hence, they are significantly more effective at lower doses in detoxifying the deleterious effects of free radicals than nonenzymatic antioxidants. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential of antioxidant therapy, challenges in their clinical translation, and the role nanoparticles/drug delivery systems could play in addressing these challenges.

Objective: To determine whether spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) as measured with a lumbar intrathecal catheter is a more predictive measure of neurologic outcome than the conventionally measured mean arterial pressure (MAP). Methods: A total of 92 individuals with acute spinal cord injury were enrolled in this multicenter prospective observational clinical trial. MAP and CSF pressure (CSFP) were monitored during the first week postinjury. Neurologic impairment was assessed at baseline and at 6 months postinjury. We used logistic regression, systematic iterations of relative risk, and Cox proportional hazard models to examine hemodynamic patterns commensurate with neurologic outcome. Results: We found that SCPP (odds ratio 1.039, p = 0.002) is independently associated with positive neurologic recovery. The relative risk for not recovering neurologic function continually increased as individuals were exposed to SCPP below 50 mm Hg. Individuals who improved in neurologic grade dropped below SCPP of 50 mm Hg fewer times than those who did not improve (p = 0.012). This effect was not observed for MAP or CSFP. Those who were exposed to SCPP below 50 mm Hg were less likely to improve from their baseline neurologic impairment grade (p = 0.0056). Conclusions: We demonstrate that maintaining SCPP above 50 mm Hg is a strong predictor of improved neurologic recovery following spinal cord injury. This suggests that SCPP (the difference between MAP and CSFP) can provide useful information to guide the hemodynamic management of patients with acute spinal cord injury.

Neurologic impairment after spinal cord injury (SCI) is currently measured and classified by functional examination. Biological markers that objectively classify injury severity and predict outcome would greatly facilitate efforts to evaluate acute SCI therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine how well inflammatory and structural proteins within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of acute traumatic SCI patients predicted American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade conversion and motor score improvement over 6 months. Fifty acute SCI patients (29 AIS A, 9 AIS B, 12 AIS C; 32 cervical, 18 thoracic) were enrolled and CSF obtained through lumbar intrathecal catheters to analyze interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, monocyte chemotactic protein (MCP)-1, tau, S100β, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) at 24 h post-injury. The levels of IL-6, tau, S100β, and GFAP were significantly different between patients with baseline AIS grades of A, B, or C. The levels of all proteins (IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, tau, S100β, and GFAP) were significantly different between those who improved an AIS grade over 6 months and those who did not improve. Linear discriminant analysis modeling was 83% accurate in predicting AIS conversion. For AIS A patients, the concentrations of proteins such as IL-6 and S100β correlated with conversion to AIS B or C. Motor score improvement also was strongly correlated with the 24-h post-injury CSF levels of all six biomarkers. The analysis of CSF can provide valuable biological information about injury severity and recovery potential after acute SCI. Such biological markers may be valuable tools for stratifying individuals in acute clinical trials where variability in spontaneous recovery requires large recruitment cohorts for sufficient power.

Study Design: Clinical practice guideline development following the GRADE process. Objectives: Hemodynamic management is one of the only available treatment options that likely improves neurologic outcomes in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Augmenting mean arterial pressure (MAP) aims to improve blood perfusion and oxygen delivery to the injured spinal cord in order to minimize secondary ischemic damage to neural tissue. The objective of this guideline was to update the 2013 AANS/CNS recommendations on the hemodynamic management of patients with acute traumatic SCI, acknowledging that much has been published in this area since its publication. Specifically, we sought to make recommendations on 1. The range of mean arterial pressure (MAP) to be maintained by identifying an upper and lower MAP limit; 2. The duration of such MAP augmentation; and 3. The choice of vasopressor. Additionally, we sought to make a recommendation on spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) targets. Methods: A multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG) was formed that included health care professionals from a wide range of clinical specialities, patient advocates, and individuals living with SCI. The GDG reviewed the 2013 AANS/CNS guidelines and voted on whether each recommendation should be endorsed or updated. A systematic review of the literature, following PRISMA standards and registered in PROSPERO, was conducted to inform the guideline development process and address the following key questions: (i) what are the effects of goal-directed interventions to optimize spinal cord perfusion on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? and (ii) what are the effects of particular monitoring techniques, perfusion ranges, pharmacological agents, and durations of treatment on extent of neurological recovery and rates of adverse events at any time point of follow-up? The GDG combined the information from this systematic review with their clinical expertise in order to develop recommendations on a MAP target range (specifically an upper and lower limit to target), the optimal duration for MAP augmentation, and the use of vasopressors or inotropes. Using methods outlined by the GRADE working group, recommendations were formulated that considered the balance of benefits and harms, financial impact, acceptability, feasibility and patient preferences. Results: The GDG suggested that MAP should be augmented to at least 75-80 mmHg as the “lower limit,” but not actively augmented beyond an “upper limit” of 90-95 mmHg in order to optimize spinal cord perfusion in acute traumatic SCI. The quality of the evidence around the “target MAP” was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is weak. For duration of hemodynamic management, the GDG “suggested” that MAP be augmented for a duration of 3-7 days. Again, the quality of the evidence around the duration of MAP support was very low, and thus the strength of this recommendation is also weak. The GDG felt that a recommendation on the choice of vasopressor or the use of SCPP targets was not warranted, given the dearth of available evidence. Conclusion: We provide new recommendations for blood pressure management after acute SCI that acknowledge the limitations of the current evidence on the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery. It was felt that the low quality of existing evidence and uncertainty around the relationship between MAP and neurologic recovery justified a greater range of MAP to target, and for a broader range of days post-injury than recommended in previous guidelines. While important knowledge gaps still remain regarding hemodynamic management, these recommendations represent current perspectives on the role of MAP augmentation for acute SCI.