4.7 Review

Concordance of preclinical and clinical pharmacology and toxicology of monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins: soluble targets

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 166, 期 3, 页码 806-822

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01812.x

关键词

monoclonal antibody; biopharmaceutical; non-clinical safety; clinical safety; adverse effects; toxicology; surrogate; rodent; cynomolgus monkey; genetically deficient mice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and fusion proteins directed towards soluble targets make an important contribution to the treatment of disease. The purpose of this review was to correlate the clinical and preclinical data on the 14 currently approved mAbs and fusion proteins targeted to soluble targets. The principal sources used to gather data were: the peer reviewed Literature; European Medicines Agency Scientific Discussions and United States Food and Drug Administration Pharmacology/Toxicology Reviews and package inserts (United States Prescribing Information). Data on the following approved biopharmaceuticals were included: adalimumab, anakinra, bevacizumab, canakinumab, certolizumab pegol, denosumab, eculizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, omalizumab, ranibizumab, rilonacept and ustekinumab. Some related biopharmaceuticals in late-stage development were also included for comparison. Good concordance with human pharmacodynamics was found for both non-human primates (NHPs) receiving the human biopharmaceutical and mice receiving rodent homologues (surrogates). In contrast, there was limited concordance for human adverse effects in genetically deficient mice, mice receiving surrogates or NHPs receiving the human pharmaceutical. In summary, the results of this survey show that although both mice and NHPs have good predictive value for human pharmacodynamics, neither species have good predictive value for human adverse effects. No evidence that NHPs have superior predictive value was found.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据