A Review of the Clinical Applicability of Neurotrophins in Cochlear Implantation

Article information

J Audiol Otol. 2026;30(2):93-103

Publication date (electronic) : 2026 April 20

doi : https://doi.org/10.7874/jao.2025.00857

Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea

Address for correspondence Seung Cheol Ahn, MD, PhD Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31116, Korea Tel +82-41-550-3852 Fax +82-41-550-7940 E-mail ansil67@dankook.ac.kr

Received 2025 December 27; Revised 2026 January 12; Accepted 2026 March 5.

Abstract

Neurotrophins reportedly improve hearing outcomes when used in combination with cochlear implants, as they promote the survival of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) and stimulate SGN neurite outgrowth in animal models of sensorineural hearing loss. However, their applicability to human patients remains unknown. This review examines the clinical applicability of neurotrophins based on advances in drug delivery techniques to the inner ear and discusses their potential for future application in human patients.

Keywords: Neurotrophin; Cochlear implant; Spiral ganglion neuron; Sensorineural hearing loss; Clinical applicability

Introduction

Cochlear implantation (CI) has long been a primary treatment option for patients with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL). However, its efficacy has often been limited by secondary degeneration of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) and the physical distance between SGNs and the CI electrode array. Numerous studies have demonstrated that neurotrophins promote the survival of SGNs and stimulate neurite outgrowth, thereby contributing to improved efficacy of CI. This review examines various strategies for delivering neurotrophins into the inner ear, specifically: 1) pump-based delivery systems, 2) delivery using biodegradable materials, 3) drug-eluting electrodes, 4) the use of neurotrophin-secreting cells, and 5) gene therapy approaches. Through this review, the potential for clinical translation of neurotrophin-based therapies is discussed.

Developmental Neurotrophin Expression in Inner Ear

In mammals, nerve growth factor (NGF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), neurotrophin-3 (NT-3), and neurotrophin-4/5 (NT-4/5) are encoded by the Ngf, Bdnf, Ntf3, and Ntf4 genes in rats; the Ngf, Bdnf, Ntf3, and Ntf5 genes in mice; and the NGF, BDNF, NTF3, and NTF4 genes in humans [1]. Among these neurotrophic factors, BDNF and NT-3 are the predominant neurotrophins in the inner ear [2,3]. They signal through Trk family receptor protein tyrosine kinases—TrkB for BDNF and TrkC for NT-3. Activation of these receptors enhances neuronal metabolism, promotes neuronal survival, stimulates neurite outgrowth, supports synaptogenesis, and strengthens synaptic responses [4,5].

There are clear differences in the expression patterns of NT-3 and BDNF during prenatal and postnatal inner ear development. During prenatal cochlear development in the rat, BDNF is expressed in both inner and outer hair cells, exhibiting a spatial gradient with the highest levels in the apical region and the lowest in the basal cochlea. However, BDNF expression in the organ of Corti is markedly reduced by postnatal day 4 [2]. BDNF expression then transiently increases in the rodent organ of Corti between postnatal days 4 and 9 [6,7], displaying a base-to-apex gradient [8]. In the adult organ of Corti, BDNF immunoreactivity has been detected, although its mRNA levels remain low [8,9]. In contrast, NT-3 is expressed predominantly in supporting cells rather than hair cells during cochlear development. NT-3 expression in inner hair cells persists throughout both prenatal and postnatal periods, following an apex-to-base gradient, whereas NT-3 expression in outer hair cells ceases after birth.

In summary, both NT-3 and BDNF are expressed in the developing cochlea with spatial gradients along the cochlear axis. NT-3 continues to be expressed postnatally in an apex-tobase gradient, albeit at lower levels than during prenatal development, whereas BDNF expression in the postnatal organ of Corti is comparatively low. In SGNs, both TrkB and TrkC receptors are expressed around birth and persist into the postnatal period [10].

The Role of Neurotrophins in SGN Survival and Neurite Outgrowth

When hair cells are destroyed by exposure to antibiotics such as aminoglycosides, SGNs undergo gradual degeneration, a phenomenon that has been reported in rats, guinea pigs [11,12], cats [13], and humans [14]. Numerous studies have shown that SGN loss can be significantly attenuated by intracochlear infusion of neurotrophins, delivery of viral vectors that drive neurotrophin expression, or transplantation of genetically engineered cells expressing neurotrophins [15-19]. Neurotrophins can also induce the overgrowth of SGN neurites: 1) Co-treatment of BDNF and ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) significantly increased neurite outgrowth in cultured dissociated SGNs from neonatal rats [20]; 2) Treatment of cultured dissociated SGNs from neonatal rats with BDNF, NT-3, and Trk receptor agonist monoclonal antibody M3 promoted neurite outgrowth in SGN explants [21].

This neurotrophin-mediated preservation of SGNs has been shown to enhance outcomes of CI [22-24]. In deafened guinea pigs implanted with CI, intracochlear infusion of BDNF for four weeks resulted in approximately 1.9 times more SGNs compared to the non-infused ear, and the characteristics of evoked compound action potentials were nearly normal [22]. Furthermore, when BDNF and NT-3 were coadministered for more than four weeks, the number of SGNs in the basal and middle turns of the cochlea increased, their morphology appeared nearly normal, and the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response thresholds were reduced [23].

Neurotrophin-mediated neurite outgrowth is also thought to influence CI outcomes, as the outgrowing neurites may reduce the gap between CI electrodes and SGNs [25]. When a CI is inserted into the inner ear, the electrode typically lies near the lateral wall of the scala tympani or along the wall of the modiolus, creating a physical gap between the electrode and the SGNs, which in turn reduces the effectiveness of SGN stimulation by the electrodes. When the gap between the electrode and the SGNs increases, a single electrode can stimulate a broader population of SGNs. As a result, adjacent electrodes stimulate overlapping SGN populations, thereby diminishing the functional performance of the CI. If SGN neurites could be guided to grow toward the CI electrodes, thereby reducing the distance between them, SGNs could be stimulated more precisely than when they are located farther away. This is why neurotrophin-mediated neurite outgrowth is important.

Considerations Regarding Neurotrophin-Induced Neurite Outgrowth in CI

In SGN neurite regrowth, the direction of growth is critically important. The apical part of the cochlea is responsible for low-frequency sounds, while the basal part is responsible for high-frequency sounds. This tonotopic arrangement is preserved even in the temporal lobe of the brain. If neurite outgrowth becomes tangled or disorganized, this tonotopic specificity may be lost, potentially reducing the sound resolution of the CI. It has been reported that SGNs treated with exogenous neurotrophins often exhibit ectopic neurite growth [26-28]. However, an experiment conducted by Landry, et al. [29] in 2013 on deafened guinea pigs showed that this concern could be somewhat alleviated. In this study, when neurotrophin was continuously administered intracochlearly for one month, ectopic growth and lateral deviation of SGN neurites were observed, but the degree of deviation was not significant relative to the size of the electrode, and it did not affect the spread of neural activation in the inferior colliculus. The results of this study suggest that the negative impact of neurotrophin-induced neurite outgrowth on the spatial selectivity of CI may be smaller than expected. These results were obtained by administering 30 μg/mL of BDNF and NT-3 together for one month. However, it is still an open question whether similar results would be observed with neurotrophin treatment longer than one month. If neurotrophins were to be directly delivered into the inner ear in actual patients, depending on the concentration and duration of administration, ectopic neurite growth could occur, which might affect spatial selectivity.

Another point to consider in the application of neurotrophins is what happens when their administration is discontinued. Just as SGNs degenerate following hair cell loss, stopping neurotrophin treatment may lead to renewed loss of SGNs. Previous studies reported such outcomes. In deafened guinea pigs, cessation of BDNF treatment for 28 days led to an accelerated decline in auditory neuron survival [30]. Shepherd, et al. [31] were also able to reproduce the accelerated loss of SGNs that Gillespie, et al. [30] had observed in guinea pigs, but they additionally found that this rapid degeneration could be prevented when continuous electrical stimulation was applied.

Although Shepherd, et al. [31] demonstrated the effect of electrical stimulation on the rapid degeneration of SGNs, and several studies have reported ES-induced SGN rescue [32-35], it is also true that there have been reports in cats, guinea pigs, or humans indicating that electrical stimulation by itself has little effect on SGN survival [36-40]. Therefore, the effect of CI-induced electrical stimulation on the survival of SGNs remains unclear. However, this has little relevance for patients who inevitably require a CI. Therefore, the more critical issue is how long neurotrophins should be administered or how they should be delivered.

Drug Delivery Methods to the Inner Ear and the Potential Applications of Neurotrophins

As discussed above, previous studies have shown that combining neurotrophin therapy with CI preserves SGNs and improves hearing outcomes [22-24,41,42]. In this section, we review the intracochlear drug application and examine whether these approaches can be utilized for the delivery of neurotrophins.

Methods for delivering neurotrophins to the inner ear can be broadly divided into cell-based and non–cell-based approaches. Non–cell-based approaches can be further subdivided into direct delivery from outside the inner ear and placement either inside or adjacent to the cochlea. The former refers to the use of pumps or catheters, whereas the latter involves biodegradable materials or drug-eluting electrodes. Cell-based approaches can be categorized into cell therapy and gene therapy.

Non–Cell-Based Approaches

Osmotic pump and catheter

Animal studies have shown that directly delivering neurotrophin into the inner ear using an osmotic pump is the most effective method for increasing its concentration within the inner ear [16,18,43]. With technological advances such as the use of microfluidic devices [44], direct intracochlear delivery via a catheter in experimental animals is still used not only for neurotrophins but also for other drugs [45]. However, due to the risk of infection, it is not formally used in actual patients. For the direct intracochlear delivery of neurotrophins using pumps or catheters to be applied in patients, issues such as infection risk, surgical complications, and secondary inner-ear damage must first be solved.

Biodegradable drug carrier

CI electrode arrays are not bioinert, and a universal intracochlear foreign body response to CI has been widely documented [46-49]. A severe foreign body response can lead to increased impedance at the CI electrode–tissue interface, resulting in reduced hearing performance. To mitigate the foreign body response, the non-specific anti-inflammatory agent dexamethasone has been widely used in clinical practice, animal studies, and in vitro models. It has been delivered in various forms—locally (via cochlear injection, round-window niche or middle-ear application, and dexamethasone-eluting implants or electrodes) and systemically (oral or parenteral administration) [50,51]. Among these approaches, roundwindow delivery and dexamethasone-eluting electrodes are particularly noteworthy as reference strategies for intracochlear neurotrophin delivery.

In a 2017 paper, Plontke, et al. [45] reported cases in which dexamethasone was delivered inside the inner ear using Ozurdex. Ozurdex is a biodegradable drug carrier containing dexamethasone embedded in a polylactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) polymer matrix. The authors placed Ozurdex in the basal part of the cochlear scala tympani to administer dexamethasone and found that the continuous intracochlear application resulted in a stable concentration for several weeks with higher drug levels more apically along the scala tympani. In a 2014 paper, Plontke, et al. [52] placed Ozurdex in the patients’ round window niche, reporting improvements in the mean hearing threshold and complete recovery in two of the five patients. Relating these results to neurotrophins, several positive aspects for their clinical application can be noted: 1) Ozurdex can serve as a drug carrier suitable for use in patients; 2) since the cochlea must be opened for CI surgery anyway, delivering neurotrophins using Ozurdex would not be difficult; and 3) if direct intracochlear injection is technically challenging, an alternative approach worth considering is the placement of an Ozurdex implant in the round window niche for neurotrophin delivery. Although drug entry into the inner ear via the round window membrane has inherent limitations, this strategy offers the advantage of avoiding the use of osmotic pumps or catheters, as required in animal experiments.

Drug eluting electrode

CI equipped with dexamethasone-eluting electrodes can be said to have opened new possibilities for neurotrophin delivery. In 2025, a study by Prenzler, et al. [53] published in Hearing Research reported the the safety and efficacy of CI with dexamethasone-eluting electrodes in 10 patients treated at the Hannover Medical School in Germany using the CIDEXEL system from June 2020 to May 2022. CIDEXEL system has a set of dexamethasone-loaded silicone coating between electrode contacts 2 and 10. This coating is designed to release the drug directly within the scala tympani over an extended duration of several months. The significance of the dexamethasone-eluting electrode approach lies in the fact that it has been applied in actual patients, and the safety of its clinical application has been verified. If a CI with neurotrophin-eluting electrodes were actually developed and applied to the inner ear, it might avoid issues such as 1) uneven distribution of neurotrophins that may result from placing a neurotrophincontaining substance in a specific part of the inner ear, such as the basal region; and 2) the use of osmotic pumps or catheters that were required in animal experiments for neurotrophin delivery.

Cell-Based Approaches

Cell-based therapy

An alternative approach to circumvent the use of osmotic pumps or catheters is cell-based therapy, involving the transplantation of cells that continuously and physiologically secrete neurotrophins. Genetically modified cells such as fibroblasts [54], retinal epithelial cell line [55], and stem cells [56], capable of secreting neurotrophins, have been used in cellbased therapy, and it has become possible to maintain neurotrophin expression for more than six months [57]. Moreover, the cell encapsulation technology introduced in cell-based therapy has enhanced safety by suppressing immune responses and restricting cell migration [57]. Recently, a more advanced method for delivering neurotrophins to the inner ear has been developed, which involves attaching neurotrophinsecreting cells to the surface of the CI [56]. Cell-based therapy has also been attempted in many other neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson disease and Alzheimer disease, and its efficacy and outcomes have been reported [58]. Considering that cell-based therapy has recently expanded its scope to autoimmune diseases [59], this approach appears to be quite promising for delivering neurotrophins into the inner ear. However, for actual application in patients, issues such as 1) which type of cells should be selected, 2) how long the cells can survive, and 3) to what extent the concentration needs to be increased within the inner ear must be resolved.

Gene therapy

A recently emerging approach is gene therapy, which broadly encompasses treatments aimed at altering gene expression or modifying the functions and biological characteristics of living cells. To achieve the objectives of gene therapy, genetic material must be delivered into target cells. The delivery systems most commonly used are classified into viral vectors and non-viral vectors, such as liposomes. In this section, these approaches are briefly discussed.

Gene therapy via viral vectors

There have been reports that gene therapy approaches using viral vectors to express various neurotrophin genes in animal models inhibited degeneration of SGNs and increased SGN survival [18,60-64]. Neurotrophin gene transfer is not limited to the inner ear; it has also been applied to the retina, spinal cord, and neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia and Parkinson’s disease. For example, adeno-associated virus (AAV)–mediated BDNF transfer to Müller cells protected photoreceptors from light-induced retinal degeneration [65], while AAV-mediated glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) delivery prevented photoreceptor loss for at least 45 days [66]. In addition, BDNF overexpression using AAV in a rat model with complete spinal cord transection enhanced locomotor performance on a treadmill [67]. Similarly, in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Huntington’s diseases, therapies involving viral delivery of neurotrophin genes have continued to be reported in various animal studies [68-70] as well as in clinical trials in humans [71-74].

The most active area of gene therapy in the inner ear is the field of hereditary hearing loss. Successful research outcomes in this field have led to clinical trials. In 2024, preliminary results were reported for two young children treated with AAVOTOF [75], and around the same time, a case series of six patients treated with AAV1-hOTOF was published in The Lancet [76]. In the same year, gene therapy was also reported in five pediatric patients with DFNB9 [77]. Those reports greatly established and confirmed the safety and efficacy of virus-mediated gene therapy in the inner ear. This level of safety and efficacy is expected to be readily applicable to neurotrophinbased gene therapy as well. Moreover, given the stable and effective long-term outcomes of gene therapy observed in conditions such as inherited retinal dystrophy [78], hemophilia A [79], and Leber hereditary optic neuropathy [80], it is reasonable to expect that neurotrophin-based gene therapy in the inner ear could achieve similar results.

However, gene therapy is not a magic bullet. Achieving therapeutic stable neurotrophin expression and applying it into effective patient treatment should overcome numerous challenges. The primary concern lies in the safety issues related to viral vectors. Several studies have shown that delivering microliter volumes of AAV vectors into the cochlear perilymphatic compartment can lead to substantial off-target leakage of expression. For example, in a translational model aimed at restoring hearing and balance in an Usher syndrome 1C mouse, unilateral delivery of an Anc80L65 AAV–harmonin-b1 vector through the cochlear round window membrane led to recovery of sound transduction in the contralateral, untreated cochlea [81]. The virus might arrive at the contralateral ear via perilymph within the cochlear aqueduct, which communicates with the subarachnoid cerebrospinal fluid compartment. The harmful effects of off-target AAV movement from the cochlea into the central nervous system (CNS) were reported in another neonatal mouse study employing an AAV-5 vector expressing GDNF. This study showed that the AAV5-hGDNF vector spread from the cochlea to the CNS and spinal cord, presumably via the cochlear aqueduct. This dissemination was associated with marked neurological dysfunction, including widespread loss of cerebellar Purkinje neurons, centrally mediated hearing loss, and impaired growth, all of which correlated with the AAV5-hGDNF vector titer [82]. Minor adverse events can also occur following viral therapy. In six children who received AAV1-hOTOF gene therapy, hearing improvement was achieved without any serious side effects, but a total of 48 minor adverse events were reported. Most of them (96%) were grade 1–2, and about 4% were grade 3 events involving a decrease in neutrophil count [76]. These effects were not severe enough to preclude the use of viral gene therapy, but if neurotrophin gene therapy using viral vectors is to be implemented in practice, such side effects would certainly need to be taken into consideration. In addition, issues such as determining the optimal duration and dosage of treatment, avoiding immune responses, and selecting appropriate patients need to be resolved. However, answers to such questions can only be obtained when the therapy is applied to humans—and so far, no such results have been reported.

Non-viral vector gene therapy

Considering the side effects associated with virus-based gene therapy, it may be worth exploring gene-therapy approaches that do not rely on viral vectors. The major non-viral gene delivery methods include lipid-based nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, inorganic nanoparticles, and electroporation [83].

Lipid-based nanoparticles have demonstrated their safety, having been used in FDA-approved patisiran [84] and in the manufacturing of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines [85]. In addition, cationic lipids such as Lipofectamine are widely used commercially available agents [86]. Despite this safety, they have certain limitations. Injection via the round window using gelfoam or via cochleostomy cannot guarantee uniform effects throughout the cochlea [87,88]. There is also a risk of infection associated with cochleostomy.

Polymeric nanoparticles fabricated from materials such as PLGA [89], polyhydroxyethyl aspartamide [90], and polyethyleneimine are capable of crossing the round window membrane [91], enabling delivery via gelfoam. Because these nanoparticles can be readily modified, they offer clear advantages for the loading and delivery of genetic material. However, their potential toxicity, as well as their absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in vivo, remain poorly understood. Moreover, it is unclear what adverse effects may arise if these particles accumulate within confined spaces such as the inner ear. Collectively, these factors represent significant limitations to their practical application [92]. There are also nanoparticles made of materials such as gold and silica (inorganic nanoparticles) [93,94], but they also have some drawbacks, including the potential for cell damage and difficulties in precise targeting. Electroporation, which uses short, high-intensity electrical pulses to introduce genetic material into cells, has been reported in several studies [95,96], however, a major drawback is tissue damage caused by the high voltages used [97].

Studies reporting the expression of neurotrophins in the inner ear using non‑viral vector gene therapy are very limited. The following study is noteworthy, in which BDNF expression mitigated damage in guinea pigs with hearing loss induced by gentamicin. Miwa, et al. [98] encapsulated BDNF mRNA in an SS‑cleavable, proton‑activated lipid‑like material (ssPalm) and soaked it into a gelatin sponge that was placed at the round window niche. BDNF expression was observed in the organ of Corti, SGNs, and stria vascularis, and this expression was shown to help mitigate cochlear damage induced by gentamicin. The protective effect on the cochlea was greater when the interval between administration of LNP_ssPalm‑BDNF mRNA and gentamicin ototoxicity was shorter [98].

Concluding Remarks

The ultimate goal of CI applied to patients with SNHL is to achieve hearing restoration that approximates normal hearing. Although CI clearly provides significant benefits in improving auditory perception, it remains difficult to restore hearing to pre-hearing-loss levels even after successful CI surgery. In fact, approximately 35%–50% of CI users experience difficulty using the telephone [99], and about 13% reportedly achieve less than 10% accuracy in recognizing words within sentences even in quiet environments [100]. These limitations are thought to arise not merely from deficits in sound perception, but more fundamentally from the limited frequency resolution of CI. This is because electrical stimulation from adjacent electrodes overlaps, resulting in the perception of spatially indistinct signals. Such channel interaction is closely associated with the physical distance between the electrodes and SGNs. As discussed above, neurotrophins have been proposed as a means of reducing this spatial gap and thereby improving auditory outcomes with CI. To summarize the above discussion and facilitate reader comprehension, a schematic was provided to depict neurite outgrowth via gene therapy and the consequent decrease in physical distance (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Schematic illustration of neurite regrowth induced by neurotrophin gene expression. A: Neurites are shown to be retracted following hair cell loss. B: Neurites regrow toward the basement membrane through the osseous spiral lamina.

In this paper, possible approaches for delivering neurotrophins into the inner ear, including Ozurdex, drug-eluting electrodes, cell-based therapy, and gene therapy, were proposed. Because these methods are already being applied in patients, they support the feasibility of the clinical application of neurotrophins. Additional methods and studies on neurotrophin administration into the inner ear, classified according to the approaches described above, are summarized in Table 1. The existence of those approaches supports the feasibility of translating neurotrophin-based therapies into clinical practice. Nevertheless, several important questions remain unre-solved. For example, how long should neurotrophins be administered? When is the optimal timing for administration? Which delivery method is the safest? And can neurotrophin therapy be considered a cost-effective option? Answers to these questions can only be obtained through clinical studies involving human subjects.

Table 1.

Neurotrophin delivery to the inner ear: relevant studies and delivery methods

Encouragingly, according to the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), a clinical trial investigat-ing neurotrophin-based gene therapy in conjunction with CI surgery is currently underway [101]. It is hoped that further clinical trials will be conducted by additional institutions and countries, ultimately contributing to improved auditory rehabilitation outcomes for CI recipients.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

The author has no financial conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

None

Acknowledgments

None

References

1. Green SH, Bailey E, Wang Q, Davis RL. The Trk A, B, C’s of neurotrophins in the cochlea. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 2012;295:1877–95.

2. Wheeler EF, Bothwell M, Schecterson LC, von Bartheld CS. Expression of BDNF and NT-3 mRNA in hair cells of the organ of Corti: quantitative analysis in developing rats. Hear Res 1994;73:46–56.

3. Fritzsch B, Fariñas I, Reichardt LF. Lack of neurotrophin 3 causes losses of both classes of spiral ganglion neurons in the cochlea in a region-specific fashion. J Neurosci 1997;17:6213–25.

4. Huang EJ, Reichardt LF. Neurotrophins: roles in neuronal development and function. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001;24:677–736.

5. Reichardt LF. Neurotrophin-regulated signalling pathways. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2006;361:1545–64.

6. Knipper M, Zimmermann U, Rohbock K, Köpschall I, Zenner HP. Expression of neurotrophin receptor trkB in rat cochlear hair cells at time of rearrangement of innervation. Cell Tissue Res 1996;283:339–53.

7. Wiechers B, Gestwa G, Mack A, Carroll P, Zenner HP, Knipper M. A changing pattern of brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression correlates with the rearrangement of fibers during cochlear development of rats and mice. J Neurosci 1999;19:3033–42.

8. Flores-Otero J, Davis RL. Synaptic proteins are tonotopically graded in postnatal and adult type I and type II spiral ganglion neurons. J Comp Neurol 2011;519:1455–75.

9. Tan J, Shepherd RK. Aminoglycoside-induced degeneration of adult spiral ganglion neurons involves differential modulation of tyrosine kinase B and p75 neurotrophin receptor signaling. Am J Pathol 2006;169:528–43.

10. Ylikoski J, Pirvola U, Moshnyakov M, Palgi J, Arumäe U, Saarma M. Expression patterns of neurotrophin and their receptor mRNAs in the rat inner ear. Hear Res 1993;65:69–78.

11. Webster M, Webster DB. Spiral ganglion neuron loss following organ of Corti loss: a quantitative study. Brain Res 1981;212:17–30.

12. Bichler E, Spoendlin H, Rauchegger H. Degeneration of cochlear neurons after amikacin intoxication in the rat. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1983;237:201–8.

13. Leake PA, Hradek GT. Cochlear pathology of long term neomycin induced deafness in cats. Hear Res 1988;33:11–33.

14. Nadol JB Jr. Degeneration of cochlear neurons as seen in the spiral ganglion of man. Hear Res 1990;49:141–54.

15. Ernfors P, Duan ML, ElShamy WM, Canlon B. Protection of auditory neurons from aminoglycoside toxicity by neurotrophin-3. Nat Med 1996;2:463–7.

16. Staecker H, Kopke R, Malgrange B, Lefebvre P, Van de Water TR. NT-3 and/or BDNF therapy prevents loss of auditory neurons following loss of hair cells. Neuroreport 1996;7:889–94.

17. Shinohara T, Bredberg G, Ulfendahl M, Pyykkö I, Olivius NP, Kaksonen R, et al. Neurotrophic factor intervention restores auditory function in deafened animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:1657–60.

18. Leake PA, Akil O, Lang H. Neurotrophin gene therapy to promote survival of spiral ganglion neurons after deafness. Hear Res 2020;394:107955.

19. Liu SS, Yang R. Inner ear drug delivery for sensorineural hearing loss: current challenges and opportunities. Front Neurosci 2022;16:867453.

20. Ramekers D, Versnel H, Strahl SB, Klis SF, Grolman W. Temporary neurotrophin treatment prevents deafness-induced auditory nerve degeneration and preserves function. J Neurosci 2015;35:12331–45.

21. Szobota S, Mathur PD, Siegel S, Black K, Saragovi HU, Foster AC. BDNF, NT-3 and Trk receptor agonist monoclonal antibodies promote neuron survival, neurite extension, and synapse restoration in rat cochlea ex vivo models relevant for hidden hearing loss. PLoS One 2019;14e0224022.

22. Landry TG, Wise AK, Fallon JB, Shepherd RK. Spiral ganglion neuron survival and function in the deafened cochlea following chronic neurotrophic treatment. Hear Res 2011;282:303–13.

23. Schwieger J, Warnecke A, Lenarz T, Esser KH, Scheper V. Neuronal survival, morphology and outgrowth of spiral ganglion neurons using a defined growth factor combination. PLoS One 2015;10e0133680.

24. Eshraghi AA, Nguyen D, Mittal R. Can brain-derived neurotrophic factor therapy improve clinical outcomes of cochlear implantation? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018;144:287–8.

25. Schmidbauer D, Fink S, Rousset F, Löwenheim H, Senn P, Glueckert R. Closing the gap between the auditory nerve and cochlear implant electrodes: which neurotrophin cocktail performs best for axonal outgrowth and is electrical stimulation beneficial? Int J Mol Sci 2023;24:2013.

26. Wise AK, Richardson R, Hardman J, Clark G, O’leary S. Resprouting and survival of guinea pig cochlear neurons in response to the administration of the neurotrophins brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neurotrophin-3. J Comp Neurol 2005;487:147–65.

27. Glueckert R, Bitsche M, Miller JM, Zhu Y, Prieskorn DM, Altschuler RA, et al. Deafferentiation-associated changes in afferent and efferent processes in the guinea pig cochlea and afferent regeneration with chronic intrascalar brain-derived neurotrophic factor and acidic fibroblast growth factor. J Comp Neurol 2008;507:1602–21.

28. Leake PA, Hradek GT, Hetherington AM, Stakhovskaya O. Brainderived neurotrophic factor promotes cochlear spiral ganglion cell survival and function in deafened, developing cats. J Comp Neurol 2011;519:1526–45.

29. Landry TG, Fallon JB, Wise AK, Shepherd RK. Chronic neurotrophin delivery promotes ectopic neurite growth from the spiral ganglion of deafened cochleae without compromising the spatial selectivity of cochlear implants. J Comp Neurol 2013;521:2818–32.

30. Gillespie LN, Clark GM, Bartlett PF, Marzella PL. BDNF-induced survival of auditory neurons in vivo: cessation of treatment leads to accelerated loss of survival effects. J Neurosci Res 2003;71:785–90.

31. Shepherd RK, Coco A, Epp SB. Neurotrophins and electrical stimulation for protection and repair of spiral ganglion neurons following sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 2008;242:100–9.

32. Kanzaki S, Stöver T, Kawamoto K, Prieskorn DM, Altschuler RA, Miller JM, et al. Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor and chronic electrical stimulation prevent VIII cranial nerve degeneration following denervation. J Comp Neurol 2002;454:350–60.

33. Leake PA, Hradek GT, Snyder RL. Chronic electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant promotes survival of spiral ganglion neurons after neonatal deafness. J Comp Neurol 1999;412:543–62.

34. Leake PA, Snyder RL, Hradek GT, Rebscher SJ. Consequences of chronic extracochlear electrical stimulation in neonatally deafened cats. Hear Res 1995;82:65–80.

35. Mitchell A, Miller JM, Finger PA, Heller JW, Raphael Y, Altschuler RA. Effects of chronic high-rate electrical stimulation on the cochlea and eighth nerve in the deafened guinea pig. Hear Res 1997;105:30–43.

36. Araki S, Kawano A, Seldon L, Shepherd RK, Funasaka S, Clark GM. Effects of chronic electrical stimulation on spiral ganglion neuron survival and size in deafened kittens. Laryngoscope 1998;108:687–95.

37. Coco A, Epp SB, Fallon JB, Xu J, Millard RE, Shepherd RK. Does cochlear implantation and electrical stimulation affect residual hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons? Hear Res 2007;225:60–70.

38. Li L, Parkins CW, Webster DB. Does electrical stimulation of deaf cochleae prevent spiral ganglion degeneration? Hear Res 1999;133:27–39.

39. Shepherd RK, Coco A, Epp SB, Crook JM. Chronic depolarization enhances the trophic effects of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in rescuing auditory neurons following a sensorineural hearing loss. J Comp Neurol 2005;486:145–58.

40. Khan AM, Handzel O, Damian D, Eddington DK, Nadol JB Jr. Effect of cochlear implantation on residual spiral ganglion cell count as determined by comparison with the contralateral nonimplanted inner ear in humans. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2005;114:381–5.

41. Scheper V, Seidel-Effenberg I, Lenarz T, Stöver T, Paasche G. Consecutive treatment with brain-derived neurotrophic factor and electrical stimulation has a protective effect on primary auditory neurons. Brain Sci 2020;10:559.

42. Song BN, Li YX, Han DM. Delayed electrical stimulation and BDNF application following induced deafness in rats. Acta Otolaryngol 2009;129:142–54.

43. Sly DJ, Hampson AJ, Minter RL, Heffer LF, Li J, Millard RE, et al. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor modulates auditory function in the hearing cochlea. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2012;13:1–16.

44. Hwang SH, Gonzalez-Suarez AM, Stybayeva G, Revzin A. Prospects and opportunities for microsystems and microfluidic devices in the field of otorhinolaryngology. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2021;14:29–42.

45. Plontke SK, Götze G, Rahne T, Liebau A. Intracochlear drug delivery in combination with cochlear implants: current aspects. HNO 2017;65(Suppl 1):19–28.

46. Rahman MT, Mostaert BJ, Eckard P, Fatima SM, Scheperle R, Razu I, et al. Dexamethasone-eluting cochlear implants reduce inflammation and foreign body response in human and murine cochleae. Sci Rep 2025;15:30615.

47. Nadol JB Jr, Eddington DK, Burgess BJ. Foreign body or hypersensitivity granuloma of the inner ear after cochlear implantation: one possible cause of a soft failure? Otol Neurotol 2008;29:1076–84.

48. Seyyedi M, Nadol JB Jr. Intracochlear inflammatory response to cochlear implant electrodes in humans. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1545–51.

49. Noonan KY, Lopez IA, Ishiyama G, Ishiyama A. Immune response of macrophage population to cochlear implantation: cochlea immune cells. Otol Neurotol 2020;41:1288–95.

50. Rahman MT, Chari DA, Ishiyama G, Lopez I, Quesnel AM, Ishiyama A, et al. Cochlear implants: causes, effects and mitigation strategies for the foreign body response and inflammation. Hear Res 2022;422:108536.

51. Fleet A, Nikookam Y, Radotra A, Gowrishankar S, Metcalfe C, Muzaffar J, et al. Outcomes following cochlear implantation with eluting electrodes: a systematic review. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2024;9e1263.

52. Plontke SK, Glien A, Rahne T, Mäder K, Salt AN. Controlled release dexamethasone implants in the round window niche for salvage treatment of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol 2014;35:1168–71.

53. Prenzler N, Salcher R, Büchner A, Warnecke A, Kley D, Batsoulis C, et al. Cochlear implantation with a dexamethasone-eluting electrode array: first-in-human safety and performance results. Hear Res 2025;461:109255.

54. Zanin MP, Hellström M, Shepherd RK, Harvey AR, Gillespie LN. Development of a cell-based treatment for long-term neurotrophin expression and spiral ganglion neuron survival. Neuroscience 2014;277:690–9.

55. Fransson A, Tornøe J, Wahlberg LU, Ulfendahl M. The feasibility of an encapsulated cell approach in an animal deafness model. J Control Release 2018;270:275–81.

56. Scheper V, Hoffmann A, Gepp MM, Schulz A, Hamm A, Pannier C, et al. Stem cell based drug delivery for protection of auditory neurons in a guinea pig model of cochlear implantation. Front Cell Neurosci 2019;13:177.

57. Gillespie LN, Zanin MP, Shepherd RK. Cell-based neurotrophin treatment supports long-term auditory neuron survival in the deaf guinea pig. J Control Release 2015;198:26–34.

58. Ku JB, Pak RJ, Ku SS, Holland RD, Kim HS. Clinical efficacy of stem cell therapy in neurotraumatic and neurodegenerative conditions: a comparative review. Tissue Eng Regen Med 2025;22:1051–66.

59. Ye Z, Zhao H, Ye X. Application potential of induced pluripotent stem cells in the research and treatment of autoimmune diseases (review). Mol Med Rep 2025;32:333.

60. Nakaizumi T, Kawamoto K, Minoda R, Raphael Y. Adenovirus-mediated expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor protects spiral ganglion neurons from ototoxic damage. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9:135–43.

61. Chikar JA, Colesa DJ, Swiderski DL, Di Polo A, Raphael Y, Pfingst BE. Over-expression of BDNF by adenovirus with concurrent electrical stimulation improves cochlear implant thresholds and survival of auditory neurons. Hear Res 2008;245:24–34.

62. Shibata SB, Cortez SR, Beyer LA, Wiler JA, Di Polo A, Pfingst BE, et al. Transgenic BDNF induces nerve fiber regrowth into the auditory epithelium in deaf cochleae. Exp Neurol 2010;223:464–72.

63. Wise AK, Hume CR, Flynn BO, Jeelall YS, Suhr CL, Sgro BE, et al. Effects of localized neurotrophin gene expression on spiral ganglion neuron resprouting in the deafened cochlea. Mol Ther 2010;18:1111–22.

64. Atkinson PJ, Wise AK, Flynn BO, Nayagam BA, Hume CR, O’Leary SJ, et al. Neurotrophin gene therapy for sustained neural preservation after deafness. PLoS One 2012;7e52338.

65. Gauthier R, Joly S, Pernet V, Lachapelle P, Di Polo A. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene delivery to muller glia preserves structure and function of light-damaged photoreceptors. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:3383–92.

66. McGee Sanftner LH, Abel H, Hauswirth WW, Flannery JG. Glial cell line derived neurotrophic factor delays photoreceptor degeneration in a transgenic rat model of retinitis pigmentosa. Mol Ther 2001;4:622–9.

67. Ziemlińska E, Kügler S, Schachner M, Wewiór I, Czarkowska-Bauch J, Skup M. Overexpression of BDNF increases excitability of the lumbar spinal network and leads to robust early locomotor recovery in completely spinalized rats. PLoS One 2014;9e88833.

68. Nagahara AH, Merrill DA, Coppola G, Tsukada S, Schroeder BE, Shaked GM, et al. Neuroprotective effects of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in rodent and primate models of Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Med 2009;15:331–7.

69. Alves S, Fol R, Cartier N. Gene therapy strategies for Alzheimer’s disease: an overview. Hum Gene Ther 2016;27:100–7.

70. Peng Y, Jiang DY, Yao SY, Zhang X, Kazuo S, Liu J, et al. Gene-modified animal models of Parkinson’s disease. Exp Neurol 2025;390:115287.

71. Tuszynski MH, Thal L, Pay M, Salmon DP, U HS, Bakay R, et al. A phase 1 clinical trial of nerve growth factor gene therapy for Alzheimer disease. Nat Med 2005;11:551–5.

72. Rafii MS, Baumann TL, Bakay RA, Ostrove JM, Siffert J, Fleisher AS, et al. A phase1 study of stereotactic gene delivery of AAV2-NGF for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2014;10:571–81.

73. Phielipp N, Henchcliffe C. Investigational gene therapies for Parkinson›s disease. CNS Drugs 2025;39:725–37.

74. Gavgani PM, García-Domínguez M. Revolutionizing Huntington›s disease treatment: breakthroughs in AAV-mediated gene therapy. Cells 2025;14:1514.

75. Qi J, Tan F, Zhang L, Lu L, Zhang S, Zhai Y, et al. AAV-mediated gene therapy restores hearing in patients with DFNB9 deafness. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2024;11e2306788.

76. Lv J, Wang H, Cheng X, Chen Y, Wang D, Zhang L, et al. AAV1-hOTOF gene therapy for autosomal recessive deafness 9: a single-arm trial. Lancet 2024;403:2317–25.

77. Wang H, Chen Y, Lv J, Cheng X, Cao Q, Wang D, et al. Bilateral gene therapy in children with autosomal recessive deafness 9: single-arm trial results. Nat Med 2024;30:1898–904.

78. Leroy BP, Fischer MD, Flannery JG, MacLaren RE, Dalkara D, Scholl HPN, et al. Gene therapy for inherited retinal disease: long-term durability of effect. Ophthalmic Res 2023;66:179–96.

79. Pasi KJ, Rangarajan S, Mitchell N, Lester W, Symington E, Madan B, et al. Multiyear follow-up of AAV5-hFVIII-SQ gene therapy for hemophilia A. N Engl J Med 2020;382:29–40.

80. Biousse V, Newman NJ, Yu-Wai-Man P, Carelli V, Moster ML, Vignal-Clermont C, et al. Long-term follow-up after unilateral intravitreal gene therapy for Leber hereditary optic neuropathy: the RESTORE study. J Neuroophthalmol 2021;41:309–15.

81. Pan B, Askew C, Galvin A, Heman-Ackah S, Asai Y, Indzhykulian AA, et al. Gene therapy restores auditory and vestibular function in a mouse model of Usher syndrome type 1c. Nat Biotechnol 2017;35:264–72.

82. Akil O, Blits B, Lustig LR, Leake PA. Virally mediated overexpression of glial-derived neurotrophic factor elicits age- and dose-dependent neuronal toxicity and hearing loss. Hum Gene Ther 2019;30:88–105.

83. Leclère JC, Marianowski R, Montier T. Gene therapy for hearing loss: current status and future prospects of non-viral vector delivery systems. Hear Res 2024;453:109130.

84. Suhr OB, Coelho T, Buades J, Pouget J, Conceicao I, Berk J, et al. Efficacy and safety of patisiran for familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy: a phase II multi-dose study. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2015;10:109.

85. Wang P, Nair MS, Liu L, Iketani S, Luo Y, Guo Y, et al. Antibody resistance of SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.351 and B.1.1.7. Nature 2021;593:130–5.

86. Zuris JA, Thompson DB, Shu Y, Guilinger JP, Bessen JL, Hu JH, et al. Cationic lipid-mediated delivery of proteins enables efficient proteinbased genome editing in vitro and in vivo. Nat Biotechnol 2015;33:73–80.

87. Jero J, Mhatre AN, Tseng CJ, Stern RE, Coling DE, Goldstein JA, et al. Cochlear gene delivery through an intact round window membrane in mouse. Hum Gene Ther 2001;12:539–48.

88. Feng SJ, Voruz F, Leong S, Hammer DR, Breil E, Aksit A, et al. Microneedle-mediated delivery of siRNA via liposomal-based transfection for inner ear gene therapy. Otol Neurotol 2024;45:1068–77.

89. Youm I, West MB, Li W, Du X, Ewert DL, Kopke RD. siRNA-loaded biodegradable nanocarriers for therapeutic MAPK1 silencing against cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. Int J Pharm 2017;528:611–23.

90. Kim DK, Park SN, Park KH, Park CW, Yang KJ, Kim JD, et al. Development of a drug delivery system for the inner ear using poly(amino acid)-based nanoparticles. Drug Deliv 2015;22:367–74.

91. Tan BT, Foong KH, Lee MM, Ruan R. Polyethylenimine-mediated cochlear gene transfer in guinea pigs. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;134:884–91.

92. Zhang J, Yang X, Chang Z, Zhu W, Ma Y, He H. Polymeric nanocarriers for therapeutic gene delivery. Asian J Pharm Sci 2025;20:101015.

93. Dykman LA, Khlebtsov NG. Gold nanoparticles in biology and medicine: recent advances and prospects. Acta Naturae 2011;3:34–55.

94. Janjua TI, Cao Y, Kleitz F, Linden M, Yu C, Popat A. Silica nanoparticles: a review of their safety and current strategies to overcome biological barriers. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2023;203:115115.

95. Xiong W, Wagner T, Yan L, Grillet N, Müller U. Using injectoporation to deliver genes to mechanosensory hair cells. Nat Protoc 2014;9:2438–49.

96. Pinyon JL, von Jonquieres G, Crawford EN, Duxbury M, Al Abed A, Lovell NH, et al. Neurotrophin gene augmentation by electrotransfer to improve cochlear implant hearing outcomes. Hear Res 2019;380:137–49.

97. Batista Napotnik T, Polajžer T, Miklavčič D. Cell death due to electroporation – A review. Bioelectrochemistry 2021;141:107871.

98. Miwa T, Saito H, Akita H. Lipid nanoparticles-encapsulated brainderived neurotrophic factor mRNA delivered through the round window niche in the cochleae of guinea pigs. Exp Brain Res 2021;239:425–33.

99. Rumeau C, Frère J, Montaut-Verient B, Lion A, Gauchard G, Parietti-Winkler C. Quality of life and audiologic performance through the ability to phone of cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:3685–92.

100. Lenarz M, Sönmez H, Joseph G, Büchner A, Lenarz T. Long-term performance of cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:112–8.

101. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. A phase I/II nonrandomized, controlled trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of neurotrophin gene therapy delivered during cochlear implant surgery [Internet]. Sydney: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; 2018 [cited 2025 Jul 15]. Available from: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=ACTRN12618001556235.

102. Miller JM, Chi DH, O’Keeffe LJ, Kruszka P, Raphael Y, Altschuler RA. Neurotrophins can enhance spiral ganglion cell survival after inner hair cell loss. Int J Dev Neurosci 1997;15:631–43.

103. Ruan RS, Leong SK, Mark I, Yeoh KH. Effects of BDNF and NT-3 on hair cell survival in guinea pig cochlea damaged by kanamycin treatment. Neuroreport 1999;10:2067–71.

104. Shoji F, Miller AL, Mitchell A, Yamasoba T, Altschuler RA, Miller JM. Differential protective effects of neurotrophins in the attenuation of noise-induced hair cell loss. Hear Res 2000;146:134–42.

105. Endo T, Nakagawa T, Kita T, Iguchi F, Kim TS, Tamura T, et al. Novel strategy for treatment of inner ears using a biodegradable gel. Laryngoscope 2005;115:2016–20.

106. Noushi F, Richardson RT, Hardman J, Clark G, O’Leary S. Delivery of neurotrophin-3 to the cochlea using alginate beads. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:528–33.

107. Richardson RT, Wise AK, Thompson BC, Flynn BO, Atkinson PJ, Fretwell NJ, et al. Polypyrrole-coated electrodes for the delivery of charge and neurotrophins to cochlear neurons. Biomaterials 2009;30:2614–24.

108. Okano T, Nakagawa T, Kita T, Endo T, Ito J. Cell-gene delivery of brain-derived neurotrophic factor to the mouse inner ear. Mol Ther 2006;14:866–71.

109. Rejali D, Lee VA, Abrashkin KA, Humayun N, Swiderski DL, Raphael Y. Cochlear implants and ex vivo BDNF gene therapy protect spiral ganglion neurons. Hear Res 2007;228:180–7.

110. Wise AK, Fallon JB, Neil AJ, Pettingill LN, Geaney MS, Skinner SJ, et al. Combining cell-based therapies and neural prostheses to promote neural survival. Neurotherapeutics 2011;8:774–87.

111. Fukui H, Wong HT, Beyer LA, Case BG, Swiderski DL, Di Polo A, et al. BDNF gene therapy induces auditory nerve survival and fiber sprouting in deaf Pou4f3 mutant mice. Sci Rep 2012;2:838.

112. Budenz CL, Wong HT, Swiderski DL, Shibata SB, Pfingst BE, Raphael Y. Differential effects of AAV.BDNF and AAV.Ntf3 in the deafened adult guinea pig ear. Sci Rep 2015;5:8619.

113. Pfingst BE, Colesa DJ, Swiderski DL, Hughes AP, Strahl SB, Sinan M, et al. Neurotrophin gene therapy in deafened ears with cochlear implants: long-term effects on nerve survival and functional measures. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2017;18:731–50.

114. Chen H, Xing Y, Xia L, Chen Z, Yin S, Wang J. AAV-mediated NT-3 overexpression protects cochleae against noise-induced synaptopathy. Gene Ther 2018;25:251–9.

115. Leake PA, Rebscher SJ, Dore› C, Akil O. AAV-mediated neurotrophin gene therapy promotes improved survival of cochlear spiral ganglion neurons in neonatally deafened cats: comparison of AAV2-hBDNF and AAV5-hGDNF. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2019;20:341–61.

116. Mukherjee S, Kuroiwa M, Oakden W, Paul BT, Noman A, Chen J, et al. Local magnetic delivery of adeno-associated virus AAV2(quad YF)-mediated BDNF gene therapy restores hearing after noise injury. Mol Ther 2022;30:519–33.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Approach	Animal	Neurotrophin	Carrier/cell/vector	Method	Ref
Osmotic pump	Guinea pig	NT-3		Cochleostomy/ST	[15]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3/CNTF/GDNF		Cochleostomy/ST	[102]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3		Cochleostomy/ST	[103]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3		Cochleostomy/ST	[104]
	Guinea pig	BDNF		Cochleostomy/ST	[30]
	Guinea pig	BDNF		Perfused onto external RWM	[43]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3		Via canula attached to implant electrodes	[29]
Biodegradable carrier	Guinea pig	BDNF	Hydrogel	A hydrogel immersed with BDNF was positioned on the RW.	[105]
Biodegradable carrier	Guinea pig	NT-3	Alginate beads	Alginate beads loaded with NT-3 were placed adjacent RW.	[106]
Drug eluting CI	Guinea pig	NT-3	Ppy/pTS	(Ppy/pTS/NT-3) was applied to cochlear implant electrodes.	[107]
Cell therapy	C57BL/6	BDNF	NIH3T3 cell	NIH3T3 cells transfected with BDNF gene were transplanted via PSCC.	[108]
	Guinea pig	BDN	Fibroblast	CI electrodes coated with BDNF expressing fibroblast transfected with adenovirus were used.	[109]
	Cat		Choroid plexus cells	Encapsulated choroidal cells in alginate in combination with CI	[110]
	Guinea pig	GDNF/BDNF	ARPE-19	Encapsulated ARPE-19 placed in ST	[55]
Viral gene therapy	Guinea pig	CNTF/BDNF	Ad	Ad.CNTF and/or Ad, BDNF adenovirus through RW into ST	[60]
	Guinea pig	BDNF	Ad	Ad.BDNF through RW into ST	[61]
	Guinea pig	BDNF	Ad/AAV	Ad.BDNF or AAV.BDNF using cochleostomy into SM or ST.	[62]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3	Ad	Ad.NT-3 or Ad.BDNF using cochleostomy into SM or ST	[63]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3	Ad	Ad.NT-3 or Ad.BDNF using cochleostomy into SM	[64]
	Pou4F3 mouse	BDNF	Ad	Ad.BDNF using cochleostomy into SM	[111]
	Guinea pig	BDNF/NT-3	AAV	AAV.BDNF or AAV.NT-3 using cochleostomy into ST	[112]
	Guinea pig	NT-3	AAV	AAV.NT-3 using cochleostomy into ST	[113]
	Guinea pig	NT-3	AAV	AAV.NT-3 using cochleostomy into ST	[114]
	Cat	BDNF/GDNF	AAV	AAV2.BDNF or AAV5.GDNF through RW into ST	[115]
	Rat	BDNF	AAV	Magnet targeted SPION tagged AAV2.BDNF on RW	[116]
Non-viral gene therapy	Guinea pig	BDNF	LNP	ssPalm based LNP-BDNF-mRNA positioned on RW	[98]