Evidence-mapping review evaluates mucoadhesive biomaterials for neuroactive drug delivery, indicating their potential in controlled CNS exposure.
Intranasal nose-to-brain delivery remains difficult to translate because regional deposition, mucociliary clearance, epithelial transport, local instability, tolerability feedback, and systemic absorption jointly determine central nervous system (CNS) exposure. This evidence-mapping review evaluates mucoadhesive biomaterial platforms as formulation-development tools for improving residence, release control, deposition reproducibility, and exposure interpretability in neuroactive intranasal delivery, using insomnia-relevant timing requirements as a stringent case for controlled onset and offset. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus were searched from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2026. Seventeen primary intranasal platform studies were included; route-attribution credibility was high in five studies, moderate in five, low in six, and not assessable in one. Platform classes included in situ gelling depots, pre-formed gels, polymeric nanoparticles, lipid or vesicular carriers, hybrid nanoparticle-in-gel systems, and device-coupled dry powders. Key formulation variables were translated into development endpoints, including rheology, gelation, mucoadhesion, release kinetics, deposition, permeability, systemic leakage, and nasal tolerability. The proposed model-informed strategies are conceptual; no new physiologically based pharmacokinetic simulations were performed. Successful platforms should be judged by reproducible onset, controlled offset, bounded systemic exposure, and recovery-phase safety rather than by peak brain concentrations or targeting ratios alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: