Clinical Pharmacology & Biopharmaceutics
Open Access

Biopharmaceuticals; Cost-effectiveness; Economic impact

Introduction

Immunogenicity, the propensity of biopharmaceuticals to induce immune responses in patients, is a critical aspect of drug development and clinical practice. This abstract provides a concise overview of immunogenicity in biopharmaceuticals, focusing on its significance, underlying mechanisms, and implications for therapeutic efficacy and safety.

Significance of immunogenicity

Immunogenicity poses challenges to the development and administration of biopharmaceuticals, impacting their safety, efficacy, and clinical utility. Understanding and mitigating immunogenicity is essential to ensure the success of biopharmaceutical therapies and to minimize adverse immune reactions in patients [1,2].

Mechanisms of immunogenicity

The immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals is influenced by various factors, including their molecular complexity, structural characteristics, and route of administration. Upon exposure to biopharmaceuticals, the immune system may recognize them as foreign antigens, leading to the generation of antibodies, cellular immune responses, or immune-mediated adverse events [3,4].

Implications for efficacy and safety

The development of Anti-Drug Antibodies (ADAs) can impact the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and therapeutic efficacy of biopharmaceuticals. Neutralizing antibodies, in particular, can render biopharmaceutical therapies ineffective, necessitating dose adjustments or alternative treatment strategies. Moreover, immunogenicity can contribute to immune-mediated adverse events, ranging from mild hypersensitivity reactions to severe systemic reactions [5,6].

Strategies for management

Efforts to mitigate immunogenicity encompass various approaches, including rational drug design, formulation optimization, and the use of immunomodulatory agents [7]. Predictive immunogenicity assays, biomarkers, and clinical monitoring enable early detection of immunogenic responses, facilitating informed decision-making and personalized treatment strategies [8].

Regulatory considerations

Regulatory agencies require comprehensive assessment of immunogenicity as part of the drug development process, with guidelines outlining specific requirements for preclinical and clinical evaluation. Manufacturers are mandated to conduct immunogenicity risk assessments and implement risk management strategies to ensure the safety and efficacy of biopharmaceutical products [9,10].

Conclusion

Immunogenicity is a critical consideration in the development and clinical use of biopharmaceuticals, with implications for therapeutic efficacy, safety, and patient outcomes. By understanding the mechanisms underlying immunogenicity and implementing proactive mitigation strategies, researchers and clinicians can optimize the benefit-risk profile of biopharmaceutical therapies, ultimately improving patient care and treatment outcomes. Ongoing research and collaboration are essential to advance our understanding of immunogenicity and to address the evolving challenges in biopharmaceutical development and clinical practice.

1. Suman JD (2003) Nasal drug delivery. Expert Opin Biol Ther 3: 519-523.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

2. Grassin Delyle S, Buenestado A, Naline E, Faisy C, Blouquit-Laye S, et al. (2012) Intranasal drug delivery: an efficient and non-invasive route for systemic administration: focus on opioids. Pharmacol Ther 134: 366-379.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

3. Campbell C, Morimoto BH, Nenciu D, Fox AW (2012) Drug development of intranasally delivered peptides. Ther Deliv 3: 557-568.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

4. Thorne R, Pronk G, Padmanabhan V, Frey W (2004) Delivery of insulin-like growth factor-I to the rat brain and spinal cord along olfactory and trigeminal pathways following intranasal administration. Neuroscience 127: 481-496.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

5. Dhuria SV, Hanson LR, Frey WH (2010) Intranasal delivery to the central nervous system: mechanisms and experimental considerations. J Pharm Sci 99: 1654-1673.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

6. Alam MI, Baboota S, Ahuja A, Ali M, Ali J, et al. (2012) Intranasal administration of nanostructured lipid carriers containing CNS acting drug: pharmacodynamic studies and estimation in blood and brain. J Psychiatr Res 46: 1133-1138.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

7. Muller RH, Shegokar R, Keck CM (2011) 20 years of lipid nanoparticles (SLN & NLC): present state of development & industrial applications. Curr Drug Discov Technol 8: 207-227.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

8. Silva AC, Amaral MH, Sousa Lobo J, Lopes CM (2015) Lipid nanoparticles for the delivery of biopharmaceuticals. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 16: 291-302.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

9. Wicki A, Witzigmann D, Balasubramanian V, Huwyler J (2015) Nanomedicine in cancer therapy: challenges, opportunities, and clinical applications. J Control Release 200: 138-157.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

10. Beloqui A, Solinís MÁ, Rodríguez-Gascón A, Almeida AJ, Préat V (2016) Nanostructured lipid carriers: promising drug delivery systems for future clinics. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 12: 143-161.

Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar