What do you all think of developing an intraarterial drug rather than i.v. drug? I mean if the IV version of the drug is less effective, is the impracticality of the arterial drug limiting?

cooper said:

What do you all think of developing an intraarterial drug rather than i.v. drug? I mean if the IV version of the drug is less effective, is the impracticality of the arterial drug limiting?

This is not such a good idea. Arteries' walls are very hard to poke and blood is pumping through them with a lot of pressure. Beside, they have sensitive nerves all around them. Poking an atery is very dangerous and painful and not an option.

I understand what you're saying, Sandy, but they do poke arteries for measuring arterial blood gas 'ABGs' so entering an artery is not entirely not an option although it is way less convenient for pharmaceutical purposes.

My question is in fact referring to animal models...and it is a question of cost-benefit ratio. If one finds that the drug is rapidly metabolized via an i.v. route, would it be beneficial to look at an i.a. route?

cooper said:

IMy question is in fact referring to animal models...and it is a question of cost-benefit ratio. If one finds that the drug is rapidly metabolized via an i.v. route, would it be beneficial to look at an i.a. route?

Hi Cooper - first, you have to consider what kind of drug you are administrering and the effects on the peripherial nervous system versus the central nervous system.

Very small guage needles inserted "in the direction of blood low" and after microscopic disection of sheath for identification of never to be avoided - both serve to minimize physical damage - as far as the metabolism issue - I just joined so I may have missed it - but would that not also depend on whether the 'target' action was central versus peripherial?

Bob