Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Davis, John D.
• Bravo Padros, Marçal
• Conrado, Daniela J.
• Ganguly, Samit
• Guan, Xiaowen
• Hassan, Hazem E.
• Hazra, Anasuya
• Irvin, Susan C.
• Jayachandran, Priya
• Kosloski, Matthew P.
• Lin, Kuan‐Ju
• Mukherjee, Kamalika
• Paccaly, Anne
• Papachristos, Apostolos
• Partridge, Michael A.
• Prabhu, Saileta
• Visich, Jennifer
• Welf, Erik S.
• Xu, Xiaoying
• Zhao, An
• Zhu, Min

Titel

Subcutaneous Administration of Monoclonal Antibodies: Pharmacology, Delivery, Immunogenicity, and Learnings From Applications to Clinical Development

Ist Teil von

• Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2024-03, Vol.115 (3), p.422-439

Ort / Verlag

United States

Erscheinungsjahr

2024

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can reduce treatment burden for patients and healthcare systems compared with intravenous (i.v.) infusion through shorter administration times, made possible by convenient, patient‐centric devices. A deeper understanding of clinical pharmacology principles related to efficacy and safety of s.c.‐administered mAbs over the past decade has streamlined s.c. product development. This review presents learnings from key constituents of the s.c. mAb development pathway, including pharmacology, administration variables, immunogenicity, and delivery devices. Restricted mAb transportation through the hypodermis explains their incomplete absorption at a relatively slow rate (pharmacokinetic (PK)) and may impact mAb‐cellular interactions and/or onset and magnitude of physiological responses (pharmacodynamic). Injection volumes, formulation, rate and site of injection, and needle attributes may affect PKs and the occurrence/severity of adverse events like injection‐site reactions or pain, with important consequences for treatment adherence. A review of immunogenicity data for numerous compounds reveals that incidence of anti‐drug antibodies (ADAs) is generally comparable across i.v. and s.c. routes, and complementary factors including response magnitude (ADA titer), persistence over time, and neutralizing antibody presence are needed to assess clinical impact. Finally, four case studies showcase how s.c. biologics have been clinically developed: (i) by implementation of i.v./s.c. bridging strategies to streamline PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor development, (ii) through co‐development with i.v. presentations for anti‐severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 antibodies to support rapid deployment of both formulations, (iii) as the lead route for bispecific T cell engagers (BTCEs) to mitigate BTCE‐mediated cytokine release syndrome, and (iv) for pediatric patients in the case of dupilumab.