Combinatorial treatment of acute spinal cord injury with ghrelin, ibuprofen, C16, and ketogenic diet does not result in improved histologic or functional outcome.

Because of the complex, multifaceted nature of spinal cord injury (SCI), it is widely believed that a combination of approaches will be superior to individual treatments. Therefore, we employed a rat model of cervical SCI to evaluate the combination of four noninvasive treatments that individually have been reported to be effective for acute SCI during clinically relevant therapeutic time windows. These treatments included ghrelin, ibuprofen, C16, and ketogenic diet (KD). These were selected not only because of their previously reported efficacy in SCI models but also for their potentially different mechanisms of action. The administration of ghrelin, ibuprofen, C16, and KD several hours to days postinjury was based on previous observations by others that each treatment had profound effects on the pathophysiology and functional outcome following SCI. Here we showed that, with the exception of a modest improvement in performance on the Montoya staircase test at 8-10 weeks postinjury, the combinatorial treatment with ghrelin, ibuprofen, C16, and KD did not result in any significant improvements in the rearing test, grooming test, or horizontal ladder. Histologic analysis of the spinal cords did not reveal any significant differences in tissue sparing between treatment and control groups. Although single approaches of ghrelin, ibuprofen, C16, and KD have been reported to be beneficial after SCI, our results show that the combination of the four interventions did not confer significant functional or histological improvements in a cervical model of SCI. Possible interactions among the treatments may have negated their beneficial effects, emphasizing the challenges that have to be addressed when considering combinatorial drug therapies for SCI.

The effectiveness of the anti-CD11d treatment is reduced in rat models of spinal cord injury that produce significant levels of intraspinal hemorrhage.

We have previously reported that administration of a CD11d monoclonal antibody (mAb) improves recovery in a clip-compression model of SCI. In this model the CD11d mAb reduces the infiltration of activated leukocytes into the injured spinal cord (as indicated by reduced intraspinal MPO). However not all anti-inflammatory strategies have reported beneficial results, suggesting that success of the CD11d mAb treatment may depend on the type or severity of the injury. We therefore tested the CD11d mAb treatment in a rat hemi-contusion model of cervical SCI. In contrast to its effects in the clip-compression model, the CD11d mAb treatment did not improve forelimb function nor did it significantly reduce MPO levels in the hemi-contused cord. To determine if the disparate results using the CD11d mAb were due to the biomechanical nature of the cord injury (compression SCI versus contusion SCI) or to the spinal level of the injury (12th thoracic level versus cervical) we further evaluated the CD11d mAb treatment after a T12 contusion SCI. In contrast to the T12 clip compression SCI, the CD11d mAb treatment did not improve locomotor recovery or significantly reduce MPO levels after T12 contusion SCI. Lesion analyses revealed increased levels of hemorrhage after contusion SCI compared to clip-compression SCI. SCI that is accompanied by increased intraspinal hemorrhage would be predicted to be refractory to the CD11d mAb therapy as this approach targets leukocyte diapedesis through the intact vasculature. These results suggest that the disparate results of the anti-CD11d treatment in contusion and clip-compression models of SCI are due to the different pathophysiological mechanisms that dominate these two types of spinal cord injuries.