- Open Access
Customer-centric product presentations for monoclonal antibodies
AAPS Open volume 9, Article number: 3 (2023)
Delivering customer-centric product presentations for biotherapeutics, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), represents a long-standing and paramount area of engagement for pharmaceutical scientists. Activities include improving experience with the dosing procedure, reducing drug administration-related expenditures, and ultimately shifting parenteral treatments outside of a controlled healthcare institutional setting. In times of increasingly cost-constrained markets and reinforced with the coronavirus pandemic, this discipline of “Product Optimization” in healthcare has gained momentum and changed from a nice-to-have into a must.
This review summarizes latest trends in the healthcare ecosystem that inform key strategies for developing customer-centric products, including the availability of a wider array of sustainable drug delivery options and treatment management plans that support dosing in a flexible care setting. Three disease area archetypes with varying degree of implementation of customer-centric concepts are introduced to highlight relevant market differences and similarities. Namely, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, and oncology have been chosen due to differences in the availability of subcutaneously dosed and ready-to-use self-administration products for mAb medicines and their follow-on biologics.
Different launch scenarios are described from a manufacturer’s perspective highlighting the necessity of platform approaches. To unfold the full potential of customer-centric care, value-based healthcare provider reimbursement schemes that incentivize the efficiency of care need to be broadly implemented.
Over the past quarter century, biotherapeutics, such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), have become a prevailing novel treatment modality (Lu et al. 2020) and as such significantly contribute to both the costs (Hernandez et al. 2018) and the environmental impact (Amasawa et al. 2021) of healthcare. Inherent to their physicochemical properties, mAbs must be administered parenterally, a circumstance that can be considered inconvenient (Fernández et al. 2017) and frequently mandates more burdensome in-clinic dosing (Bohra et al. 2020).
In times of continuously growing cost pressure on healthcare and major implications of the pandemic on established medical services (Arsenault et al. 2022), any effort in minimizing the dosing complexity of parenteral administration has the potential to reduce expenditures for the drug administration procedure. For instance, if permitted by the safety profile of a biological medicine, an attempt to lessen in-clinic time during an intravenous dosing day is the provision of fast infusion regimens. This approach can improve cost-effectiveness of the treatment, as it allows more people to be treated in the clinic within a given time frame (Spadaro et al. 2017). To further facilitate intravenous dosing and to aid operators with obtaining central vascular access, new device types, such as a handheld assistive artificial intelligence-enabled, ultrasound-guided robotic device for intravenous catheterization, are currently undergoing early development (Brattain et al. 2021).
An alternative concept for optimizing hospital resource utilization that has been in the center of interest of many drug delivery researchers in recent years represents reformulating a biological medication for application via a less-invasive administration route. In 2014, Tetteh et al. (2014) developed a regression-based algorithm that included an estimate on how the administration route of biotherapeutics, including mAbs, may impact on healthcare delivery expenditures. The analysis suggests that assuming no other change (that is, in-clinic dosing, dosing frequency), subcutaneous or intramuscular administration of biologics lowers total healthcare delivery costs as compared to intravenous infusions.
A more significant step in reducing dosing regimen-related inconvenience, healthcare institutional spending and in improving affordability and access to mAb treatments is to shift dosing outside of the clinical setting (Wolfromm et al. 2017; Bittner et al. 2018; Bittner and Schmidt 2021). Here, subcutaneous at-home- and self-administration has become an established dosing regimen for mAbs with a favorable safety and tolerability profile across different disease areas (Gottlieb et al. 2016, Raffaelli et al. 2019, Van den Bemt et al. 2019, Timmermann et al. 2020, Jappe et al. 2021, Bagel et al. 2022). Especially low-volume subcutaneous injections can be self-administered by means of a variety of prefilled syringes or pen device types, thus accounting for personal priorities and capabilities (Anderson and Redondo 2011; Vermeire et al. 2018). While these automated dosing aids support convenience with an at-home dosing regimen, adherence and persistence to subcutaneous administration in an unsupervised setting varies between medical products (Tkacz et al. 2014; Nieto et al. 2021). Besides disease severity or prior experience with subcutaneous administration, also the dosing schedule can contribute to compliance issues with the prespecified application procedures (Tkacz et al. 2014).
The situation is complicated specifically for high-dose mAbs requiring comparatively large administration volumes and for mAbs dosed in combination therapy. While user preference assessments demonstrate that even in the hospital setting, high-dose subcutaneous injections with individual dose volumes between 5 and 15 milliliters (mL) are preferred over intravenous infusion regimens (Pivot et al. 2014; Rummel et al. 2017; O'Shaughnessy et al. 2021; Usmani et al. 2021), customized dosing schemes for at-home administration still remain to be developed by manufacturers in close cooperation with healthcare providers and regulators. This is particularly the case for mAbs that exhibit severe infusion-related reactions (IRRs) mainly occurring during the first dosing cycles (Rombouts et al. 2020).
To improve adherence to parenteral dosing in a non-controlled setting, the individual demands of people treated with mAbs have to be accounted for by manufacturers. In addition to interventions that address educational, behavioral or psychological barriers against complying with the dosing regimen (Remington et al. 2013), providing personalized and thus customer-centric product presentations and administration schemes has the potential to enhance adherence to parenteral home administration overall (Ridyard et al. 2016).
The term customer centricity is applied across industries highlighting that in order to achieve sustainable product offerings, satisfying the needs of “the customer” has to be the ultimate focus for any development decision (Pardo-Jaramillo et al. 2020). For medicinal products, “the customer” is classically defined as “the patient,” but increasingly the entire healthcare ecosystem is referred to using this term. Thus, in addition to people receiving treatment for a diagnosed medical condition, this ecosystem comprises professional healthcare providers and institutions, regulators, payers (Pidun et al. 2021), and ultimately society as a whole.
In the pharmaceutical industry, efforts to ameliorate the product profile of an established medicine are driven by the cross-functional discipline of “Product Optimization” (Bittner and Schmidt 2022). “Product Optimization” also referred to as “Formulation and Device Lifecycle Management” aims at improving the drug delivery profile and product presentation for a medicine that is either already on the market or in late-stage clinical development and thus at providing a more customer-centric presentation.
This review is written from a manufacturer’s perspective and summarizes key trends in the healthcare ecosystem that define customer-centric drug delivery requirements for mAbs across different therapeutic areas, illustrates approaches to obtain insights into emerging drug delivery necessities, and compares the latest developments in three distinct disease area archetypes.
Drug delivery as treatment enabler versus as customer-centric differentiator
Drug delivery is commonly explained as the “method or process of administering a pharmaceutical compound to achieve a therapeutic effect” (Gupta and Kumar 2012; Tiwari et al. 2012). This definition predominantly refers to drug delivery technologies that enable the administration of pharmaceutical products per se. Such is particularly the case when developing formulation or device technologies for novel treatment modalities with previously unexplored physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties. Frequently, in these instances, there is neither experience available on how a galenical formulation can impact bioavailability, safety or efficacy of the medication, nor on what would be the most preferred product profile from a customer perspective. Focus of drug delivery scientists is therefore on progressing a product presentation that achieves the required target exposure via an appropriate administration route. Especially with new and possibly disease-modifying biological molecules, technologies that go beyond treatment enablement may either have not yet been identified or are still in early development (Blanco and Gardinier 2020). Aspects of convenient dosing or efficient healthcare resource utilization are of secondary priority at this stage. Consequently, any formulation and device optimization that would delay initial molecule launch and thus availability of the medication for customers is typically introduced as a lifecycle management (Bittner and Schmidt 2022).
“Customer-centric” drug delivery, as defined in this article, becomes an important aspect for indications with a variety of more mature medications with similar physicochemical properties available from a given compound class. Here, treatment enabling technologies have been established over time (Shams et al. 2021). With emerging customer insights on needs for improving the product presentation, drug delivery efforts predominantly focus on differentiating the medication with a more convenient and cost-efficient profile (Roy et al. 2021; Schreiber et al. 2022).
In addition to achieving a user-oriented drug delivery profile, manufacturers engage in offering medicines with overall more sustainable presentations. Activities entail the implementation of measures to reduce drug wastage via more economic dosing regimens and supply chain concepts (Hendrikx et al. 2017; Tat and Heydari 2021).
Over time, and on the basis of progressively established platform technologies, this initially stepwise approach is emerging into a situation where novel products are available with the best feasible drug delivery profile from initial molecule launch onwards.
Healthcare trends that define customer-centric mAb product presentations
Today, people diagnosed with a chronic condition are increasingly well informed about particularities of their disease and willing to actively participate in the design of healthcare processes (Longtin et al. 2010). Resulting customer-centric concepts commonly include aspects of disease self-management (Holmes et al. 2019) and as such mandate measures that allow unsupervised parenteral dosing. In this case, providers, in order to support dosing in a remote setting, require reassurance that high-quality disease monitoring and adherence to treatment procedures is maintained. Assuming compliance and adequate support services are guaranteed for parenteral administration outside of a healthcare institution, the underlying societal benefits of at-home- and particularly the economic benefits of self-administration (Franken et al. 2020) are pivotal elements of value-based healthcare (Dainty et al. 2018, Teisberg et al. 2020).
From a regulator’s perspective, mAbs suitable for home administration must possess an appropriate safety profile and must be available in a product presentation that supports unsupervised administration (Bittner and Schmidt 2022). As data derived from registrational clinical trial investigations alone may not exhaustively reveal feasibility of a flexible care setting, additional sources of information are being considered. In assessing the risk benefit of a medicinal product, regulators progressively encourage manufacturers to actively implement real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) during development processes and to share “patient-provided information” for evaluation as part of drug and medical device applications (United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2018). The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines RWD as “data relating to patient health status and/or the delivery of health care routinely collected from a variety of sources” and RWE as “the clinical evidence about the usage and potential benefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of RWD” (United States Food and Drug Administration 2022b). According to the FDA, RWD sources can include registries, collections of electronic health records, or administrative and medical claims databases. Besides prescription information, medical diagnoses, bills submitted to payer organizations, costs, charges and reimbursement amounts, such databases also include insights into procedures and treatments performed (Rocco et al. 2017; Park and Lee 2021). Globally, clinical trial results are therefore supplemented by RWD and RWE (Hiramatsu et al. 2021). This evidence also serves as a source for estimating the impact of drug delivery modalities on healthcare resource utilization (Stearns et al. 2019).
Likewise, the application of robust RWE to supplement experimental evidence in coverage decisions is being considered globally (Facey et al. 2020). In a literature review on the US healthcare system conducted by Hampson et al. (2018), comparative clinical effectiveness and network meta-analysis for quantitative indirect comparisons were identified as pivotal sources for initial payer coverage and Heath Technology Assessment decisions. Here, “patient-reported data” may be used as a complimentary data source. For reassessments, that is reconsidering coverage, formulary placement or payment terms, as well as in the context of outcomes-based contracting, RWE can play a role in further defining the clinical or economic value of an intervention, beyond the evidence generated in the clinical trial setting. Notably, in their review, a number of challenges associated with the use of RWE for healthcare payment decisions were identified. These include aspects of reporting bias, incomplete data, lack of universally accepted methodological standards, lack of investigator expertise, or obsolete evidence hierarchies. Similar findings were made in a US payer interview conducted by Timbie et al. (2021). The evaluation identified the evidence from rigorous clinical trials as a prioritized source for assessing efficacy and short-term safety findings. Some payers, however, “felt that RWE was particularly helpful when the long-term durability of devices or rare adverse events were key considerations in coverage decisions”.
Figure 1 highlights key healthcare trends that inform customer-centric drug delivery needs for monoclonal antibodies. Insights reveal the need for technologies that enable dosing and data collection in a flexible care setting. Here, contingent upon the medication’s safety and tolerability, medication administration may take place in the clinic, a physician’s office, a community or infusion center or in the patient’s home (Bittner and Schmidt 2021).
Customer-centric product presentations that enable dosing in a flexible care setting
Reliable application of biotherapeutics in a flexible care setting depends on adequate user training and education and mandates treatment initiation under professional supervision (Highlights of Prescribing Information (HPI) Humira®, Hizentra®, Kesimpta®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). Establishing convenient drug delivery schemes and electronic data capturing tools permit physicians to make accurate treatment decisions while their patient is dosed outside of a controlled environment (Eun-Young 2017; El-Sappagh et al. 2019; Sebastian et al. 2019). Especially, if home dosing is facilitated with mechanisms to collect “patient-provided information,” such data could have the potential to reduce payer’s uncertainty around adherence and to complement value-based reimbursement models.
Beyond professional support services and electronic data capturing and monitoring tools, drug delivery improvements that reduce supply chain complexity, permit simple and intuitive drug administration, and facilitate medication storage and disposal represent a crucial element of pharmaceutical research and development.
Figure 2 illustrates drug delivery improvements for mAbs that reduce dosing complexity and enable dosing and data collection in a flexible care setting. Aspects include (1) improving the product presentation, (2) reducing the overall burden of parenteral drug administration, and (3) complementing combination therapy. In this order, product optimizations are expected to possess increasing potential to facilitate remote parenteral care.
Attempts in advancing the product presentation entail optimizing storage conditions and shelf-life of the medication (Kuzman et al. 2021), as well as improving its packaging to account for an easy to store and to handle offering (Zadbuke et al. 2013). Product optimizations that lessen the burden associated with parenteral administration of biotherapeutics comprise fast intravenous infusion regimens (Al Zahrani et al. 2009), fixed dosing regimens instead of body size-adjusted dosing (Egorin 2003), subcutaneous dosing alternatives to more invasive intravenous infusions (Bittner et al. 2018), or automated injection devices (Vijayaraghavan 2020). Connected devices and accompanying health apps are being implemented to support adherence in an out-patient setting and can be utilized to collect RWE on possible adverse events and share it back with the treating physician (Bittner et al. 2019). Drug delivery improvements to complement combination therapy involve the development of fixed-dose combinations with two or more mAbs co-formulated in the same dosing vehicle, or dual chamber bags (Allmendinger 2021). Details on underlying concepts and scientific nonclinical and clinical development approaches have been summarized previously and are therefore off-scope for this article (Bittner and Schmidt 2022).
Gaining insights into customer needs for product optimization of biological medicines
To inform investments into customer-centric product optimizations for existing medicines, manufacturers regularly collect insights on possible challenges with their medications’ drug delivery profile. For marketed mAbs or for biologics in development in an indication with similar treatment modalities already employed, information on how the product might be improved is typically already available from secondary sources and thus can be estimated based on existing analogues. Notably, customers’ desires evolve with the maturity of a market based on emerging sophistication of drug delivery technologies and comparisons with other indications with biotherapeutics with similar drug delivery requirements. The journey of product optimizations is therefore flexible and adaptable to change at all times.
An understanding of user and provider preferences for one over another drug delivery methodology is gained either as part of pivotal registrational clinical trials or in smaller dedicated usability studies (Li and Easton 2018). Here, electronic apps with dosing reminders and tools to collect “patient-reported outcomes” in the home setting (El Emam et al. 2009) provide early insights into possible challenges and opportunities of a product optimization. Additionally, treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life surveys (Kempton et al. 2021), as well as time and motion studies (De Cock et al. 2014; Pivot et al. 2014) that assess the impact of the drug administration procedure on the efficiency of dosing in a prespecified setting represent an appreciable source of information.
For marketed medications and relevant reference products with a similar drug delivery profile in other indications, insights into the practicality of the drug delivery profile are frequently derived from direct user or provider feedback to the manufacturer of a medicinal product. This encompasses anecdotal reports on challenges with the drug administration instructions and at times even suggestions on how to improve these. Input is additionally tracked via established complaint management processes (Hake et al. 2019) in which customer feedback is collected and reviewed systematically over time. Verifiable customer co-creation (Adelman et al. 2019; Peng et al. 2022) may be realized via satisfaction surveys or customer workshops designing the most appropriate drug delivery system for a drug and as part of well-defined human factor trials (Lageat et al. 2021).
Key developments in providing customer-centric product presentations for mAbs across different disease areas
Disease area archetypes
The availability of product presentations and dosing regimens that support administration of mAbs in a flexible care setting varies considerably across indications. Three different disease area archetypes have been selected to describe the status and key developments on the journey to increasing customer centricity of mAb medications. Table 1 illustrates the relevant attributes of these different markets. Disease areas comprise rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and oncology (ONC).
Disease area archetype 1 (rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease)—mature markets with a variety of established mAb treatments and corresponding follow-on biologics available for self-administration
Disease area archetype 1 encompasses RA and IBD, representing mature subcutaneous self-administration markets with established originator mAbs and other long-standing biological treatments and corresponding biosimilars either already approved or in development (De Figueiredo et al. 2021; Findeisen et al. 2021; Radu and Bungau 2021). Authorized mAb treatments for both RA and IBD include the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The B-cell-depleting therapy rituximab and the interleukin-6 receptor antagonists tocilizumab and sarilumab are indicated for the treatment of RA (Senolt 2019). The interleukin-12 and interleukin-23 inhibitor ustekinumab, the α4β7 integrin antagonist vedolizumab, and the α4 integrin antagonist natalizumab are authorized for the treatment of IBD (Mao et al. 2018; Wyant et al. 2016).
In 1998, the chimeric mAb infliximab was the first tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor authorized by the FDA for the treatment of Crohn’s disease (CD) (Melsheimer et al. 2019). Branded infliximab was and is still solely available with an intravenous dosing regimen as a powder for reconstitution (HPI Remicade®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). The first fully human recombinant immunoglobulin G1 mAb in RA, adalimumab, was already introduced with a subcutaneous dosing regimen at initial product approval in 2002 (Marušić and Klemenčić 2018). The majority of branded injectables in the field are available with either both an intravenous and a subcutaneous formulation (golimumab, tocilizumab, ustekinumab, vedolizumab; HPIs Simponi®, Simponi Aria® Actemra®, Stelara®, Entyvio®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a, SMPC Entyvio®: European Medicines Agency 2021) or a subcutaneous formulation only (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, sarilumab; HPIs Humira®, Cimzia®, Kevzara®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). The fixed-dose regimens omit the need for body size-normalized dose calculation. Subcutaneous injection volumes do not exceed 2 mL and dosing frequencies range from weekly to every 4 weeks. The subcutaneous administration regimen for ustekinumab consists of an intravenous loading dose followed by every 8 weeks subcutaneous maintenance doses. Ready-to-use prefilled syringes or pen devices provide users with different dosing alternatives as per their personal requirements. Branded natalizumab, infliximab, and rituximab can only be given intravenously with maintenance dosing frequencies between every 4 weeks and every 6 months (HPIs Tysabri®, Remicade®, Rituxan®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). These infusion regimens represent an alternative for people who prefer intravenous over subcutaneous dosing (Allen et al. 2010) or value a lower treatment frequency independent of the administration route (Huynh et al. 2014). In the clinic, less frequent dosing can be a contributor to a more convenient and cost-efficient treatment management scheme (Tetteh and Morris 2014), especially if medical examinations can be combined with a dosing day. Most notably, the fact that a variety of injectable medications are approved both for the treatment of RA and IBD increases healthcare provider’s general familiarity with an injection device type and offers the possibility for leveraging learnings on challenges with the injections (Chilton and Collett 2008; Domańska et al. 2017; Gely et al. 2019) across indications. Table 2 summarizes the mAb presentations authorized for the treatment of adults diagnosed with RA or IBD (CD and ulcerative colitis (UC)).
Prominent customer-centric product optimizations in disease area archetype 1 include changing the composition of the subcutaneous formulation for adalimumab. Accounting for "patient-reported pain" immediately following injection, the manufacturer changed the chemical buffer to help stabilize and preserve the mAb. This seemingly small change was shown to result in a reduction of pain at the injection site and ultimately in a significantly improved adherence and time on treatment overall (Bergman et al. 2020; Patel and Luu 2020). The finding is all the more important as decreased persistence to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy had been reported to be associated with poorer clinical outcomes (Bluett et al. 2015). Additional product optimizations introduced for branded adalimumab comprise a reduced injection volume with a higher concentrated dosing solution, higher needle gauge, or modifications in the material of the injection devices (St Clair-Jones et al. 2020).
With the aim to optimize experience with the dosing procedure, to reduce the fear associated with needle use, and to aid people with impaired dexterity, in 2016, certolizumab pegol’s product presentations were complemented with a button-free autoinjector characterized by a wide, non-slip grip (Bailey et al. 2020). Supported with adequate training, the device could improve user confidence and satisfaction with subcutaneous self-administration. The introduction of a mini cartridge to be applied by means of a reusable autoinjector for the biologic etanercept in 2017 (Collier et al. 2017, Sedo 2018) may in the future also serve as a platform for mAbs. The product also utilizes an improved dosing solution that had been shown to lessen injection site pain as compared to the previous formulation (Cohen et al. 2019). Preference assessments comparing the novel reusable with the existing disposable automated pen device revealed perceived advantages for both injection aids, thus giving users the choice between two devices according to personal priorities (Collier et al. 2017).
To further facilitate compliance with at-home dosing, companies are implementing so-called patient support programs and app-based assistance tools including customized dosing reminders or injection and symptom trackers (Graigner et al. 2017, Lambrecht et al. 2021). Branded certolizumab pegol offers the option to apply the first partially reusable electromechanical injection device “of its kind available for use with biologic treatment in rheumatology and dermatology in Europe” (UCB 2021). Device design was actually guided by intended user feedback through human factor evaluations (Domańska et al. 2018). The injector was found to be preferred due to its ease-of-use over other subcutaneous devices in a study with certolizumab pegol-treated people from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden (Pouls et al. 2020).
Manufacturers of follow-on biologics for mAbs in RA and IBD focus efforts on either using established injection device platforms or on customizing technologies to differentiate their products via unique, distinctive drug delivery characteristics. As for the branded counterparts, user and healthcare provider satisfaction and usability studies are part of the autoinjector development and commercialization strategy (Thakur et al. 2016; Tischer and Mehl 2018; Fleischmann et al. 2022). This iterative co-creation with customers is particularly important in disease areas in which people report problems with manual dexterity, pain linked to joint swelling in the hands, and general challenges with the self-injection procedure (Keininger and Coteur 2011).
Celltrion’s infliximab biosimilar received European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval for a subcutaneous dosing alternative in 2019 and FDA review is anticipated to be completed as a next milestone (Rose 2021; Verma et al. 2021), while branded infliximab is only available with an intravenous infusion regimen. This subcutaneous self-administered infliximab product presentation paired with telemedicine support and increasingly available RWD is suggested to lessen the time spent for travel and hospital attendance during dosing days and as such to reduce the pressure on healthcare systems (Ahmed et al. 2021; Perry and Jang 2020; Schreiber et al. 2022).
In aspiring to relieve the burden of parenteral dosing, the feasibility of oral dosing of mAbs is being examined (Philippart et al. 2016; New 2020Abramson et al. 2022). Different to injectable dosage forms, the individual dose level that can be administered orally is markedly reduced due to limited fill volumes of ingested oral dosage forms. Consequently, this approach is particularly interesting for mAbs in immunology, as inherent to their comparatively low-dose levels, a practicable oral dosing frequency may be achievable.
Different oral delivery technologies have recently advanced to clinical investigational stage. The first approach aims at precise delivery of biotherapeutics to gastrointestinal tissue thus avoiding high systemic exposure and potentially associated side effects. Here, biosimilar infliximab is being assessed for the feasibility of an oral version in the treatment of IBD. The aim is to target release in the colon and to protect the mAb from digestion in the stomach and upper gastrointestinal tract through local stabilization against proteases (Intract Pharma 2022). A second advanced oral delivery approach utilizes an orally ingestible robotic pill that auto-injects the biotherapeutic into the wall of the small intestine (Dhalla et al. 2022). The authors report that in an initial clinical trial with octreotide in healthy participants, administration of the pill was safe, well-tolerated, and yielded in an oral bioavailability of 65%. Assuming the scientific concept is confirmed in larger clinical trials and treatment can be realized at commercializable dose levels and dosing regimens, this approach has the potential to provide new clinical strategies in the future (Zhang et al. 2021).
Disease area archetype 2—market with a small number of mAbs established for in-clinic or self-administration and no corresponding biosimilars available
MS, the second disease area archetype, is characterized by established non-mAb biological disease-modifying treatments available for subcutaneous self-administration. The majority of mAbs is offered with an intravenous infusion regimen, but the first subcutaneous mAb for self-administration has recently reached the market. To date, no biosimilar mAb is available in the US (United States Food and Drug Administration 2022c).
More precisely, subcutaneous self-administration with interferon beta (IFNβ) indicated to treat relapsing forms of MS is an established standard in the field (Kieseier 2011; Filipi and Jack 2020). Back in 1993, the first IFNβ was approved in the US and since then several others have become available (Bayas and Gold 2003). Due to their fixed dosing regimens and low injection volumes, IFNβ products are available in ready-to-use prefilled syringes and autoinjectors including devices with electronic adherence aids (Limmroth et al. 2017). IFNβ drug administration regimens range from every second day to every second week for the pegylated version that was authorized by the FDA in 2014 (Dashputre et al. 2017). In a German real-world study from 2021, this less frequent dosing alternative showed markedly higher scores for treatment satisfaction and convenience compared with previous therapies that included other IFNβ treatments (Menge et al. 2021).
The first mAb, natalizumab, an α4 integrin antagonist, entered the MS market in in 2004 with a fixed dose infused intravenously every 4 weeks over 1 h, and by now is available for the treatment of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS), and active secondary progressive MS (SPMS) (Rudick et al. 2013, HPI Tysabri®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). While people with prior use of subcutaneous interferon regimens commonly value the option for self-administration, especially when facilitated with automated injection devices (Lugaresi et al. 2012), the improved efficacy of natalizumab over IFNβ therapy (Rudick and Panzara 2008; Lanzillo et al. 2012) is considered to outweigh the convenience disadvantage of more invasive intravenous dosing.
In 2014, the FDA approved alemtuzumab, an anti-cluster of differentiation 52 (CD52) mAb, for the treatment of RRMS (Ruck et al. 2015). The medicine is available with a fixed-dose intravenous regimen for two treatment courses. During the first treatment course, alemtuzumab is administered over 4 h on five consecutive days and on three consecutive days during the second treatment course 12 months later. Additional treatment courses may be considered with drug administrations of three consecutive days (HPI Lemtrada®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). This comparatively convenient infrequent dosing regimen is to some extent counterbalanced by the need for regularly monitoring the increased risk of autoimmunity (Garnock-Jones 2014). While alemtuzumab when delivered via the subcutaneous route may reduce infusion-related adverse events as compared to intravenous dosing (Perumal 2012), a subcutaneous formulation is not available for use in MS.
The anti-CD20 mAb ocrelizumab was first authorized in the US in 2017 (Frampton 2017) and by now is applied for the treatment of relapsing forms of MS (RMS), including CIS, RRMS, PPMS, and for the treatment of SPMS (Stahnke et al. 2018, Weinstock-Guttman et al. 2022, HPI Ocrevus®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). The mAb was introduced with an intravenous fixed-dose regimen. Here, the initial treatment cycle comprises two separate infusions on days 1 and 15, respectively, followed by twice yearly maintenance doses. The United Kingdom’s (UK) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) noted in their final appraisal document on “Ocrelizumab for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis” that based on insights from “patient experts” “patients would value a treatment with less frequent dosing or monitoring,” acknowledging that the intervention is less interruptive for people’s lives compared to other treatments (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2018).
To optimize satisfaction and quality of life with intravenous mAb treatments and to improve healthcare institutional resource utilization in MS, efforts are made to support home-based and outpatient infusion management (Vijayan et al. 2017; Schultz et al. 2021; Barrera et al. 2022; Räuber et al. 2022). It was found that people are generally open to receiving the intravenous treatment at home and that supporting health services need to ensure safety and be efficient, responsive, and flexible. Thus, health services should also allow for administering the medication at individually preferred times during the day (Rath et al. 2021). Supporting measures include designing appropriate home health care services for natalizumab or shortening ocrelizumab’s intravenous infusion time from 3.5 to 2 h (Schultz et al. 2019; Hartung et al. 2020).
In 2020, a second anti-CD20 mAb, ofatumumab, was authorized by the FDA for the treatment of CIS, RRMS, and active SPMS (HPI Kesimpta®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). Notably, the mAb was directly introduced with a subcutaneous formulation for self-administration, a fixed dose, and a dosing volume of 0.4 mL. Using an existing autoinjector platform that was previously applied to other products of the same manufacturer (HPIs Cosyntex®, Elrezi®, Hyrimoz®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a), ofatumumab was launched both in a prefilled syringe and in an automated pen injector. In its final appraisal document on “Ofatumumab for treating relapsing multiple sclerosis,” the UK’s NICE notes that they heard from “patient experts” “that a treatment that could be self-administered monthly is less disruptive to people’s lives than treatments administered by intravenous infusions in hospital, so would be valued by people with multiple sclerosis” (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence 2021). Launching a mAb in two different presentations accounts for distinct preferences (Kivitz et al. 2018; Vermeire et al. 2018) already at first introduction of the novel medicine. Additionally, a manufacturer-initiated study revealed user and nurse preference for the autoinjector over their current injectables mainly due to the “ease to perform self-injection with the pen” and “patient able to use independently” (Ross et al. 2021).
In 2021, a subcutaneous version of natalizumab with an overall shorter infusion time as compared to the intravenous regimen received marketing authorization in the EU (Summary of Product Characteristics (SMPC) Tysabri®: European Medicines Agency 2021, López et al. 2021). The product is available in prefilled syringes, two of which need to be administered at each dosing day with a monthly dosing regimen; home treatment is not recommended. In the same year, the manufacturer did receive a complete response letter (CRL) from the FDA to their supplemental Biologic License Application for the subcutaneous dosing alternative (BioSpace 2021); the underlying reasons for the CRL are unknown to the author of this review. Also, a subcutaneous dosing alternative in development for ocrelizumab has reached Phase 3 clinical development stage (clinicaltrials.gov 2022). Table 3 summarizes the mAb presentations authorized for the treatment of adult people diagnosed with MS.
Disease area archetype 3—market with variety of established mAb treatments for healthcare provider administration and a number of corresponding biosimilars available
The ONC area represents the third selected disease area archetype. Here, mAbs for the treatment of malignancies have been on the market for decades, but due to at times severe IRRs and frequently high individual mAb dose levels, products are not yet available for self-administration. Until recently, due to the lack of technologies that facilitate high-dose subcutaneous administration, mAb products were offered as intravenous infusions only. Today, a number of subcutaneous dosing alternatives have been established. The first biosimilar mAbs have been authorized, currently with intravenous dosing regimens only.
More specifically, since the approval of rituximab for the treatment of B-cell malignancies back in 1997 (Pierpont et al. 2018), numerous other mAbs have become available and represent an important modality in the treatment of cancer (Zahavi and Weiner 2020). The large majority of these mAbs are authorized for intravenous administration and need to be administered by a healthcare professional (Kafatos et al. 2020). Depending on the nature and severity of IRRs, in some instances patients have to be monitored closely to provide medical treatment when required (HPIs Rituxan®, Erbitux®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a, Graham 2009). Understandably, these significant drug administration efforts add to the already high expenditures for mAb treatments overall (Chadda et al. 2013).
As described for intravenous treatments in MS, also in cancer care, rapid infusion regimens (Atay et al. 2012, Gozzetti et al. 2020) or less frequent dosing regimens (Lala et al. 2020) represent an attempt to reduce the expenditures associated with drug administrations as well as the time people treated with mAbs have to spend in the clinic. Here, the pandemic has intensified the elaboration of clinical strategies for optimizing infusion center care (Hanna et al. 2021). The organization of home health services is a pivotal step to reduce time and traveling expenditures associated with in-clinic dosing. Notably, efforts are mandated to ensure that costs underlying provider work supporting at-home dosing and monitoring efforts remain within an affordable range (Franken et al. 2020).
Initially, mAbs in ONC were made available with a body weight- or body surface area-adjusted dosing regimen (Hendrikx et al. 2017); an approach that was based on the way cytotoxic agents with a narrow therapeutic window are being administered (Egorin 2003). With the increasing understanding of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic and -safety correlation (Paci et al. 2020), attempts are made to either develop mAbs with a fixed dosing regimen from the very beginning (Garg et al. 2014) or to change from body size-based dosing to fixed dosing as a lifecycle management activity following initial launch (Freshwater et al. 2017; Bei et al. 2020).
The subsequent step towards more customer-friendly drug delivery of mAbs in ONC represented the development of subcutaneous dosing options for mAbs (Bittner and Schmidt 2012). Immanent to the at times high individual dose levels, compared to mAbs in immunology for example (refer to disease area archetype 1), developing subcutaneous injection regimens was initially complicated due to a number of technical challenges. With the introduction of methodologies to achieve high-concentration solutions (Mahler et al. 2009; Jiskoot et al. 2022) and the co-administration of the dispersion enhancer hyaluronidase (Frost 2007), the first moves were made to reduce the overall dosing volume and to facilitate spreading of an injected fluid in the interstitial space.
Approved high-volume subcutaneous treatments that apply these technologies can maintain the infrequent dosing regimen of the initially marketed intravenous presentations. Up until September 2022, the subcutaneous administration alternatives for rituximab in B-cell malignancies (11.7 and 13.4 mL; FDA approval in 2017), trastuzumab in HER2-positive early and metastatic breast cancer (5 mL, FDA approval in 2019), and daratumumab in multiple myeloma (15 mL; FDA approval in 2020) have been authorized in the US (Yelvington 2018, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2020, Duco 2020, Kading and Beck 2021). These subcutaneous mAb presentations are all available with fixed-dose regimens omitting the need for body size-adjusted dose calculation. Dosing solutions are offered in vial presentations and are injected manually by a healthcare provider using a handheld syringe or an infusion set.
To simplify administration of subcutaneous trastuzumab, a ready-to-use on-body delivery system that is attached to the skin via an adhesive plaster had been developed (Bittner et al. 2012, Gligorov 2022). A small study in 102 participants diagnosed with HER2-positive early breast cancer revealed that subcutaneous at-home injections by a healthcare professional did not introduce new safety signals and respondents agreed that they had benefit from at-home administration to a large (22%) or very large extent (78%) (Denys et al. 2020). Time-and-motion and preference assessments demonstrated user preferences of subcutaneous over intravenous dosing in a healthcare institutional setting, regardless of on-body delivery system or handheld syringe delivery (Pivot er al 2014). As trastuzumab is not permitted for home- or self-administration, the device was not commercialized at the time of marketing authorization of the subcutaneous trastuzumab formulation in the EU back in 2013.
The aspect that mAbs are increasingly developed for combination therapy (Henricks et al. 2015; Peterson et al. 2018), a condition that further adds to the complexity of parenteral dosing, makes ONC an intriguing disease area archetype from a drug delivery perspective. Consequently, manufacturers started co-formulating two mAbs within the same dosing vehicle as a fixed-dose combination. The first fixed-dose combination of two mAbs included pertuzumab and trastuzumab and is indicated for the treatment of people diagnosed with with HER2-positive early and metastatic breast cancer. The medication is available with a subcutaneous dosing regimen and has been approved by the FDA in 2020 (Gao et al. 2021). It had been shown that patients strongly preferred this fixed-dose combination over sequential intravenous infusion of the individual mAbs in separate formulations (O'Shaughnessy et al. 2021). Remarkably, when approving Phesgo, in its press release, the FDA specifically highlights that “…Phesgo offers an out-patient option for patients…” (United States Food and Drug Administration 2020), an aspect that is considered very relevant especially in times of the coronavirus pandemic. The first fixed-dose combination of two immunotherapy mAbs, the programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the lymphocyte activation gene-3 blocking antibody relatlimab, received FDA approval for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma in 2022 (HPI OpdualagTM: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). The formulation is administered as a fixed-dose intravenous infusion regimen.
Table 4 summarizes the high-dose subcutaneous single-active mAb formulations and fixed-dose combinations authorized for the treatment oncological indications in the US.
The initial follow-on biologics for mAbs in ONC indications have been approved by the FDA (Galvão 2020). Not only have manufacturers mimicked the originator medications, in some cases they also optimized the product presentation to make it more user-friendly. Improvements include extending the in-use stability to mitigate the impact of cold-chain rupture and exceptional temperature excursions on drug wastage and the quality of the product (Vieillard et al. 2017; Park et al. 2020). Even without the implementation of product optimizations, biosimilars are considered a customer-centric alternative to their branded counterparts solely based on the potential to increase access to mAb-based cancer medicines globally via reduced product costs compared to the originator mAb (Patel et al. 2018; Shelbaya et al. 2021). Here, interestingly, actual realization of a switch from branded to follow-on biologic or a switch from one to another biosimilar varies significantly from country to country. Regional differences, such as prescriber and/or patient insecurity concerning efficacy and safety, conservative prescribing patterns, reimbursements and billing policies, supply logistics, and legal considerations have been suggested as limiting factors to broader adoption of biosimilars (Cortes et al. 2020; Azuz et al. 2021).
The term “customer centricity,” indicating that fulfilling customer demands is as important as creating the product or services themselves (Ceesay 2020), is not new and applied across various industries. It has, however, gained increasing attention in healthcare facing high economic pressure, especially in light of the coronavirus pandemic. Here, customer centricity aims at developing convenient medicines that are globally affordable for people, providers, and the healthcare system as whole. For biotherapeutics, such as mAbs, customer-centric product offerings and treatment management concepts ideally facilitate a flexible care setting and thus allow for drug administration and treatment monitoring outside of a controlled healthcare institutional environment. Efforts in the field go beyond the described improvements of the drug delivery profile and product presentation and are in many cases driven by pharmaceutical scientists from different disciplines.
The realization of product optimizations differs across the distinctive disease area archetypes and depends on customer and market needs as well as on the clinical and technical feasibility of the intervention. In an indication in which the identification of disease-modifying medicines represents a major unmet need, initial drug delivery efforts focus on enabling treatment per se. This is for example the case for mAbs in ONC where any new and promising molecule is developed with the aim to offer it to people diagnosed with a given malignancy as soon as feasible. Equally, for mAbs with demonstrated efficacy but unfavorable exposure-related safety findings, product optimizations target a reduction in the incidence and severity of adverse events through lowering post-infusion serum levels. This may be achieved for example by increasing the dosing frequency (Bai et al. 2012), a schedule change that reduces convenience and increases healthcare institutional burden associated with shorter dosing intervals.
As per the definition in this review article, the journey to more customer-centric products starts with the availability of an efficacious product with an acceptable risk/benefit ratio. Across the selected disease archetypes, the existence of established drug delivery technology platforms plays a pivotal role in enabling customer-centric product presentations early on, ideally already at initial launch of the mAb. Combining the learnings from these distinct disease area archetypes, Fig. 3 illustrates possible launch scenarios for intravenous and subcutaneous dosing regimens for mAbs. The underlying assumption is that mAbs with dosing volumes of up to approximately 2 mL are conventionally dosed in prefilled syringes and automated pen or autoinjector devices, while higher volume mAbs are provided in vial presentations and possibly in the future in larger automated pen and autoinjector devices or in automated on-body delivery systems.
In scenario 1, at initial molecule launch, the mAb is available with an intravenous dosing regimen for in-clinic, in-office, or healthcare provider-supervised at-home administration. As a subsequent lifecycle management, a subcutaneous dosing alternative is becoming available, either in a prefilled syringe for self-administration or in a vial presentation for manual or infusion pump-assisted injection by a caregiver. Product presentations vary from case to case depending on the dosing volume and overall feasibility of a stable liquid solution. Most frequently, medications are offered with a fixed dose, unless a body size-, safety-, or response-dependent regimen is justified (Strik et al. 2018). In a third step, the manufacturer introduces automated injection devices. This scenario was for example realized for tocilizumab in RA. Initially approved in 2010 with a vial for intravenous infusion and a monthly regimen (HPI Actemra®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a), the subcutaneous dosing alternative was made available sequentially with a prefilled syringe in 2013 (Burmester et al. 2014, Shetty et al. 2014), followed by an autoinjector device as a lifecycle management in 2018 (Genentech 2013). To keep the injection volume low and account for readily available devices at the time, the subcutaneous dosing frequency was increased to weekly and every 2 weeks with a dosing volume of 0.9 mL (Fettner et al. 2019).
Scenario 1 also applies for mAbs in the treatment of malignancies. While intravenously dosed mAbs are an established treatment modality, development of subcutaneous dosing alternatives started only years after the first mAb approval (Salar et al. 2014; Jackisch et al. 2019). This is due to at times severe and even fatal IRRs and comparatively high individual dose levels that challenged the development of convenient subcutaneous dosing regimens. With increasing knowledge about the general feasibility of high-volume subcutaneous dosing, advances in high-concentration formulations and the co-administration of the dispersion enhancer hyaluronidase, by now, this route of administration has become a key focus area of drug delivery scientists across indications (Bookbinder et al. 2006; Mathaes et al. 2016). While in ONC, mAb dosing in the clinic is standard practice, today, efforts in disease management support are made to shift treatment and monitoring outside of the clinic (Denys et al. 2020). Independent at-home administration for high-dose mAbs has not yet been realized, but represents a thinkable option in the future with the advancement of larger volume on-body delivery systems (Bittner and Schmidt 2021).
Notably, next to a lack of technical and clinical feasibility, it is also the healthcare provider reimbursement model applied in a given legislation that challenges subcutaneous administration in a decentralized setting. Roughly speaking, one can discriminate between fee-for-service payment models with separate service-specific payments and models where a medical provider receives a predetermined payment for a sequence of related healthcare services (Einav et al. 2022). From a drug delivery perspective, whereas the first model incentivizes the complexity and quantity of care and as such incentivizes more complex intravenous infusions, the latter rewards the quality of care and thus ready-to-use subcutaneous regimens with the potential for at-home administration. Here, any efforts that facilitate shifting treatment outside of the clinic are usually valued.
In launch sequence scenario 2, the mAb enters the market directly with a subcutaneous formulation. Currently, the prerequisite for this approach is that doses are low enough to apply established formulation and device technologies. Products are offered either in a prefilled syringe or vial configuration. Subsequently, upon availability, automated injection devices are introduced as a lifecycle management. This scenario is depicted in how a number of mAb products were introduced into the RA and IBD indications. The sequential market introduction of increasingly optimized product presentations did allow manufacturers to consider user feedback on the selection of a ready-to-use device. The device portfolio was subsequently expanded with additional product offerings for people who prefer one over another injection aid. Examples would be branded golimumab or adalimumab. Golimumab was first approved in the US with a prefilled syringe in 2009 (HPI Simponi®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a), followed by the introduction of an autoinjector 4 years later in 2013 (Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 2013). This device was favorably evaluated in a prospective study in biologic-naïve people with active RA (Schulze-Koops et al. 2013). Likewise, adalimumab was first authorized with a prefilled syringe specifically designed for self-administration for people with stiffness in their hands due to destructive progression of RA as well as with a vial for institutional use in 2002 (HPI Humira®: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). Approval of the automated pen device followed sequentially in 2006 (BioSpace 2006). A comparison of the pen device with the established prefilled syringe as assessed in a Phase 2 trial in participants diagnosed with RA revealed preference for the automated injector based on its perceived ease of use and resulting convenience (Kivitz et al. 2006).
The framework underlying scenario 3, where mAbs are directly and solely launched with a subcutaneous dosing regimen presented in ready-to-use automated injectable presentations, to date comprises mAbs and their follow-on biologics with low dosing volumes that are generally well tolerated. These favorable features enable the use of established drug delivery platforms. Currently, this scenario is being realized for adalimumab follow-on biologics (Ghil et al. 2019, HPIs Hulio®, Hadlima: United Stated Food and Drug Administration 2022a). Another example for scenario 3 is the introduction of ofatumumab in MS, where the mAb was directly obtainable with both a prefilled syringe and an automated injection pen. Leveraging an established autoinjector platform, the manufacturer conducted the pivotal Phase 3 study for ofatumumab with a prefilled syringe and bridged to the autoinjector in a Phase 2 trial that demonstrated bioequivalence of ofatumumab administered by the autoinjector versus the prefilled syringe (Bar-Or et al. 2022).
A comparison of activities among biosimilar manufacturers qualifying as customer-centric as defined in this article did reveal different focus areas across the designated disease area archetypes. Especially in the event of more than one follow-on biologic accessible for the same originator, the competition for market shares via a customized product profile is expected to increasingly gain momentum. With this, the wider range of injection devices qualified will contribute to fulfilling the needs of a larger user population. Here, the application of established technology platforms for a variety of medications accounts for both, the familiarity of prescribers with the device as well as learnings from challenges associated with their application and how to most appropriately overcome these. For mAbs predominantly available for in-clinic mAb administration, the described seemingly smaller product changes, such as a change from a lyophilized powder for reconstitution to a ready-to-administer liquid formulation or an increased storage time and shelf-life can be an advantage for one over another biosimilar. This is due to for instance improved distribution and handling logistics, reduced drug wastage or more economical resource utilization in the clinic (Smale et al. 2021). It is of note in the context of customer-centric biosimilar offerings that depending on the country and associated pricing, reimbursement, and demand-side policies (Rémuzat et al. 2017), lower overall treatment costs per se may provide an access advantage over their originator counterpart (Kvien et al. 2022) without the need for further optimizing the product profile. In an attempt to facilitate access to treatment, the FDA has designated the first mAb, an adalimumab biosimilar, as interchangeable with the reference product in 2021 (United States Food and Drug Administration 2021), meaning that the biological product “may be substituted for the reference product without the involvement of the prescriber” (United States Food and Drug Administration 2017).
Summary and outlook
Advancing customer-centric medicinal products is an adaptive process across the lifecycle of a mAb-based medicine that aims to address individual needs of people treated as well as those of the healthcare ecosystem as a whole. The actual realization of product optimizations is in turn influenced by the safety and efficacy profile of a medication, market maturity, and the availability of enabling technologies. Here, the application of platform technologies that have the potential to be utilized for mAbs across different indications offer the possibility to launch a novel mAb already with the most preferred drug delivery profile or even with a variety of different customized options at initial market authorization. This will be especially the case for disease areas in which mAb-based medicines currently are among the investigated targets, such as Alzheimer’s disease or rare diseases (Tambuyzer et al. 2020; Lacorte et al. 2022).
Subcutaneous at-home administration of low-volume mAb formulations has been feasible for decades and illustrates the long-standing efforts in the field. As a next pivotal step to also warrant high-volume subcutaneous home administration with dosing volumes exceeding 5 mL, on-body delivery systems need to leave the exploratory stage and require implementation into clinical practice. Electronic adherence aids that further engage people treated with mAbs and their care partners into disease management while still guaranteeing a remote contact with the physician should be implemented in parallel. A significant change in dosing paradigm for mAbs would be a shift from parenteral to oral administration, with a variety of technologies in early development. A key prerequisite here is that drug administration schedules can still be managed based on the mAb’s dose level and the cost of goods sold associated with the provision of these at times device-based technologies. Manufacturers need to partner with specialized biotechnology companies and, like with any innovation, need to afford some upfront investment at risk. This way oral delivery platforms may become a reality for mAbs across disease areas.
A field of increasing relevance is the sustainability of novel drug delivery technologies. Manufacturers will have to do their homework to understand whether for example reusable technologies indeed offer a more environmental dosing alternative, or whether possible advantages come with the challenge of reduced user-friendliness.
Pharmaceutical scientists are involved in product optimizations across different disciplines, that is, besides their role as practicing healthcare provider, in formulation and device development, nonclinical and clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacology, or in regulatory affairs and market access. As such, we have the encouraging opportunity and mandate to leverage existing insights and synergies across different indications and thus avoid repeating assessments and reinventing development and commercialization pathways from the beginning. The work on improving mAb products should involve co-creation not only with customers, but also collaborations between academia, manufacturers, and biotechnology companies.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable (review article).
Cluster of differentiation 52
Clinically isolated syndrome
Complete response letter
European Medicines Agency
Flexible care setting
Food and Drug Administration
Highlights of Prescribing Information
Inflammatory bowel disease
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
Relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis
Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Summary of Product Characteristics
Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis
ClinicalTrials.gov (2022) A phase III, non-inferiority, randomized, open-label, parallel group, multicenter study to investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and radiological and clinical effects of subcutaneous ocrelizumab versus intravenous ocrelizumab in patients with multiple sclerosis (Ocarina II). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05232825. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Abramson A, Frederiksen MR, Vegge A, Jensen B, Poulsen M, Mouridsen B, Jespersen MO, Kirk RK, Windum J, Hubálek F, Water JJ, Fels J, Gunnarsson SB, Bohr A, Straarup EM, Ley MWH, Lu X, Wainer J, Collins J, Tamang S, Ishida K, Hayward A, Herskind P, Buckley ST, Roxhed N, Langer R, Rahbek U, Traverso G. (2022). Oral delivery of systemic monoclonal antibodies, peptides and small molecules using gastric auto-injectors. Nat Biotechnol. 40(1):103-109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01024-0
Adelman DT, Van Genechten D, Megret CM, Truong Thanh XT, Hand P, Martin WA (2019) Co-creation of a lanreotide autogel/depot syringe for the treatment of acromegaly and neuroendocrine tumours through collaborative human factor studies. Adv Ther 36(12):3409–3423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01112-3
Ahmed M, Bankov G, Casey D, Perry ME (2021) CT-P13 subcutaneous infliximab in gastroenterology and rheumatology. Immunotherapy 13(12):1001–1009. https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2020-0339
Al Zahrani A, Ibrahim N, Al Eid A (2009) Rapid infusion rituximab changing practice for patient care. J Oncol Pharm Pract 15(3):183–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155208100527
Allen PB, Lindsay H, Tham TC (2010) How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered? BMC Gastroenterol 10(10):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-10-1
Allmendinger A (2021) Opportunities in an evolving pharmaceutical development landscape: product differentiation of biopharmaceutical drug products. Pharm Res 38:739–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-021-03037-5
Amasawa E, Kuroda H, Okamura K, Badr S, Sugiyama H (2021) Cost–benefit analysis of monoclonal antibody cultivation scenarios in terms of life cycle environmental impact and operating cost. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 9(42):14012–14021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c01435
Anderson BJ, Redondo MJ (2011) What can we learn from patient-reported outcomes of insulin pen devices? J Diabetes Sci and Technol 5(6):1563–1571. https://doi.org/10.1177/193229681100500633
Arsenault C, Gage A, Kim MK, Kapoor NR, Akweongo P, Amponsah F, Aryal A, Asai D, Awoonor-Williams JK, Ayele W, Bedregal P, Doubova SV, Dulal M, Gadeka DD, Gordon-Strachan G, Mariam DH, Hensman D, Joseph JP, Kaewkamjornchai P, Eshetu MK, Gelaw SK, Kubota S, Leerapan B, Margozzini P, Mebratie AD, Mehata S, Moshabela M, Mthethwa L, Nega A, Oh J, Park S, Passi-Solar A, Pérez-Cuevas R, Phengsavanh A, Reddy T, Rittiphairoj T, Sapag JC, Thermidor R, Tlou B, Guiñez FV, Bauhoff S, Kruk ME (2022) COVID-19 and resilience of healthcare systems in ten countries. Nat Med 28:1314–1324. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01750-1
Atay S, Barista I, Gundogdu F, Akgedik K, Arpaci A (2012) Rapid-infusion rituximab in lymphoma treatment: 2-year experience in a single institution. J Oncol Pract 8(3):141–143. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2011.000319
Azuz S, Newton M, Bartels D, Klindt Poulsen B (2021) Uptake of biosimilar trastuzumab in Denmark compared with other European countries: a comparative study and discussion of factors influencing implementation and uptake of biosimilars. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 77:1495–1501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-021-03155-4
Bagel J, Tatla D, Hellot S, Knapp B, Murphy C, Peterson L, Sebastian M (2022) Bimekizumab self-Injection devices: two multicenter, randomized, open-label studies on self-administration by patients with psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol 21(2):162–171. https://doi.org/10.36849/jdd.6274
Bai S, Jorga K, Xin Y, Jin D, Zheng Y, Damico-Beyer LA, Gupta M, Tang M, Allison DE, Lu D, Zhang Y, Joshi A, Dresser MJ (2012) A guide to rational dosing of monoclonal antibodies. Clin Pharmacokinet 51(2):119–135. https://doi.org/10.2165/11596370-000000000-00000
Bailey K, Mountian I, Bruggraber R, Sunderland K, Tilt N, Szegvari B (2020) Patient satisfaction with CIMZIA® (certolizumab pegol) AutoClicks® in the UK. Adv Ther 37:1522–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01257-6
Bar-Or A, Wiendl H, Montalban X, Alvarez E, Davydovskaya M, Delgado SR, Evdoshenko EP, Giedraitiene N, Gross-Paju K, Haldre S, Herrman CE, Izquierdo G, Karelis G, Leutmezer F, Mares M, Meca-Lallana JE, Mickeviciene D, Nicholas J, Robertson DS, Sazonov DV, Sharlin K, Sundaram B, Totolyan N, Vachova M, Valis M, Bagger M, Häring DA, Ludwig I, Willi R, Zalesak M, Su W, Merschhemke M, Fox EJ (2022) Rapid and sustained B-cell depletion with subcutaneous ofatumumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis: APLIOS, a randomized phase-2 study. Mult Scler 28(6):910–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585211044479
Barrera B, Simpson H, Engebretson E, Sillau S, Valdez B, Gonzalez JP, Winger R, Alvarez E, Gross R, Piquet A, Schreiner T, Corboy J, Pei J, Vollmer T, Nair K (2022) Evaluating the impact of administration of ocrelizumab via home infusion on safety and patient reported outcomes (P16–4.005). Neurology 98(Suppl18):3018
Bayas A, Gold R (2003) Lessons from 10 years of interferon beta-1b (Betaferon/Betaseron) treatment. J Neurol 250(Suppl4):IV3-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-003-1402-8
Bei D, Osawa M, Uemura S, Ohno T, Gobburu J, Roy A, Hasegawa M (2020) Benefit-risk assessment of nivolumab 240 mg flat dose relative to 3 mg/kg Q2W regimen in Japanese patients with advanced cancers. Cancer Sci 111(2):528–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.14252
Bergman M, Patel P, Chen N, Jing Y, Saffore CD (2020) Evaluation of adherence and persistence differences between adalimumab citrate-free and citrate formulations for patients with immune-mediated diseases in the United States. Rheumatol Ther 8(1):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-020-00256-x
BioSpace (2006) Abbott Laboratories receives FDA approval for new HUMIRA® delivery device. https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/abbott-laboratories-receives-fda-approval-for-new-humira-r-delivery-device-/. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
BioSpace (2021) Biogen provides regulatory update on the supplemental biologic license application (sBLA) for subcutaneous administration of TYSABRI® (natalizumab). https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/biogen-provides-regulatory-update-on-the-supplemental-biologic-license-application-sbla-for-subcutaneous-administration-of-tysabri-natalizumab-/. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Bittner B, Schmidt S (2012) Subcutaneous administration of monoclonal antibodies in oncology as alternative to established intravenous infusion. Pharm Ind 4:638–643
Bittner B, Schmidt J (2021) Subcutaneous drug delivery devices: enablers of a flexible care setting. In: Chappel E (ed) Drug delivery devices and therapeutic systems. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp 159–179
Bittner B, Schmidt J (2022) Formulation and device lifecycle management: a guidance for researchers and drug developers. Elsevier Academic Press, London
Bittner B, Richter WF, Hourcade-Potelleret F, McIntyre C, Herting F, Zepeda ML, Schmidt J (2012) Development of a subcutaneous formulation for trastuzumab - nonclinical and clinical bridging approach to the approved intravenous dosing regimen. Drug Res 62(9):401–409. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1321831
Bittner B, Richter W, Schmidt J (2018) Subcutaneous Administration of biotherapeutics: an overview of current challenges and opportunities. BioDrugs 32:425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-0295-0
Bittner B, Schmit Chiesi C, Kharawala S, Kaur G, Schmidt J (2019) Connected drug delivery devices to complement drug treatments: potential to facilitate disease management in home setting. Med Devices (auckl) 12(12):101–127. https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S198943
Blanco MJ, Gardinier KM (2020) New chemical modalities and strategic thinking in early drug discovery. ACS Med Chem Lett 11(3):228–231. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00582
Bluett J, Morgan C, Thurston L, Plant D, Hyrich KL, Morgan AW, Wilson AG, Isaacs JD, Cordingley L, Barton A (2015) Impact of inadequate adherence on response to subcutaneously administered anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs: results from the Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis Genetics and Genomics Study Syndicate cohort. Rheumatology (oxford) 54(3):494–499. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keu358
Bohra A, Rizvi QAAK, CYY, Vasudevan A, van Langenberg DR, (2020) Transitioning patients with inflammatory bowel disease from hospital-based to rapid home-based infliximab: a stepwise, safety and patient-orientated process towards sustainability. World J Gastroenterol 26(36):5437–5449. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i36.5437
Bookbinder LH, Hofer A, Haller MF, Zepeda ML, Keller GA, Lim JE, Edgington TS, Shepard HM, Patton JS, Frost GI (2006) A recombinant human enzyme for enhanced interstitial transport of therapeutics. J Control Release 114(2):230–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.05.027
Brattain LJ, Pierce TT, Gjesteby LA, Johnson MR, DeLosa ND, Werblin JS, Gupta JF, Ozturk A, Wang X, Li Q, Telfer BA, Samir AE (2021) AI-enabled, ultrasound-guided handheld robotic device for femoral vascular access. Biosensors (basel) 11(12):522. https://doi.org/10.3390/bios11120522
Burmester GR, Rubbert-Roth A, Cantagrel A, Hall S, Leszczynski P, Feldman D, Rangaraj MJ, Roane G, Ludivico C, Lu P, Rowell L, Bao M, Mysler EF (2014) A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (SUMMACTA study). Ann Rheum Dis 73(1):69–74. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203523
Ceesay LB (2020) Building a high customer experience management organization: towards customer-centricity.Preprints 2020100053. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202010.0053.v1
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2013) Approval Package for: APPLICATION NUMBER: BLA 125289/S103. SIMPONI® SmartJect® autoinjector. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/bla/2013/125289Orig1s103.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2020) FDA approves daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj for multiple myeloma. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-data bases/fda-approves-daratumumab-and-hyaluronidase-fih j-multiple-myeloma. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Chadda S, Larkin M, Jones C, Sykes D, Barber B, Zhao Z, Gao S, Bengttson NO (2013) The impact of infusion reactions associated with monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer: a European perspective. J Oncol Pharm Pract 19(1):38–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155212451197
Chilton F, Collett RA (2008) Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskelet Care 6:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.110
Cohen S, Samad A, Karis E, Stolshek BS, Trivedi M, Zhang H, Aras GA, Kricorian G (2019) Chung JB (2019) Decreased injection site pain associated with phosphate-free etanercept formulation in rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis patients: a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatol Ther 6:245–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-019-0152-8
Collier DH, Bitman B, Coles A, Liu L, Kumar S, Judd C (2017) A novel electromechanical autoinjector, AutoTouch™, for self-injection of etanercept: real-world use and benefits. Postgrad Med 129(1):118–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/00325481.2017.1251291
Cortes J, Perez-Garcia JM, Llombart-Cussac A, Curigliano G, El Saghir NS, Cardoso F, Barrios CH, Wagle S, Roman J, Harbeck N, Eniu A, Kaufman PA, Tabernero J, García-Estévez L, Schmid P, Arribas J (2020) Enhancing global access to cancer medicines. CA Cancer J Clin 2:105–124. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21597
Dainty KN, Golden BR, Hannam R, Webster F, Browne G, Mittmann N, Stern A, Zwarenstein M (2018) A realist evaluation of value-based care delivery in home care: the influence of actors, autonomy and accountability. Soc Sci Med 206:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.006
Dashputre AA, Kamal KM, Pawar G (2017) Cost-effectiveness of peginterferon beta-1a and alemtuzumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 23(6):666–676. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.6.666
De Cock E, Pan YI, Tao S, Baidin P (2014) Time savings with trastuzumab subcutaneous (SC) injection verse trastuzumab intravenous (IV) infusion: a time and motion study in 3 Russian centers. Value Health 17:A653
Denys H, Martinez-Mena CL, Martens MT, D’Hondt RG, Graas ML, Evron E, Fried G, Ben-Baruch NE, Vulsteke C, Van Steenberghe MM (2020) Safety and tolerability of subcutaneous trastuzumab at home administration, results of the phase IIIb open-label BELIS study in HER2-positive early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 181(1):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05604-7
Dhalla AK, Al-Shamsie Z, Beraki S, Dasari A, Fung LC, Fusaro L, Garapaty A, Gutierrez B, Gratta D, Hashim M, Horlen K, Karamchedu P, Korupolu R, Liang E, Ong C, Owyang Z, Salgotra V, Sharma S, Syed B, Syed M, Vo AT, Abdul-Wahab R, Wasi A, Yamaguchi A, Yen S, Imran M (2022) A robotic pill for oral delivery of biotherapeutics: safety, tolerability, and performance in healthy subjects. Drug Deliv Transl Res 12(1):294–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-021-00938-1
Domańska B, Van Lunen B, Peterson L, Mountian I, Schiff M (2017) Comparative usability study for a certolizumab pegol autoinjection device in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 14(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2016.1256283
Domańska B, Stumpp O, Poon S, Oray S, Mountian I, Pichon C (2018) Using patient feedback to optimize the design of a certolizumab pegol electromechanical self-injection device: insights from human factors studies. Adv Ther 35(1):100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-017-0645-1
Duco MR, Murdock JL, Reeves DJ (2020) Trastuzumab/hyaluronidase-oysk: a new option for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Ann Pharmacother 54(3):254–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028019877936
Egorin MJ (2003) Horseshoes, hand grenades, and body-surface area-based dosing: aiming for a target. J Clin Oncol 21(2):182–183
Einav L, Finkelstein A, Ji Y, Mahoney N (2022) Voluntary regulation: evidence from medicare payment reform. Q J Econ 137(1):565–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab035
El Emam K, Jonker E, Sampson M, Krleza-Jerić K, Neisa A (2009) The use of electronic data capture tools in clinical trials: web-survey of 259 Canadian trials. J Med Internet Res 11(1):e8. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1120
El-Sappagh S, Ali F, Hendawi A, Jang JH, Kwak KS (2019) A mobile health monitoring-and-treatment system based on integration of the SSN sensor ontology and the HL7 FHIR standard. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 19(1):97. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0806-z
Eun-Young K (2017) Development and application of direct data capture for monitoring medication compliance in clinical trials. Healthc Inform Res 23(4):249–254. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.249
European Medicines Agency (2021) Summary of Product Characteristics. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/glossary/summary-product-characteristics. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Facey K, Rannanheimo P, Batchelor L, Borchardt M, De Cock J (2020) Real-world evidence to support Payer/HTA decisions about highly innovative technologies in the EU—actions for stakeholders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 36(4):459–468. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026646232000063X
Fernández O, Duran E, Ayuso T, Hernández L, Bonaventura I, Forner M (2017) Treatment satisfaction with injectable disease-modifying therapies in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (the STICK study). PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185766
Fettner S, Mela C, Wildenhahn F, Tavanti M, Wells C, Douglass W, Mallalieu NL (2019) Evidence of bioequivalence and positive patient user handling of a tocilizumab autoinjector. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 16(5):551–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2019.1604678
De Figueiredo SR, Caon AER, Hossne RS, Teixeira FV, Winkler SM, Queiroz NSF (2021) Biosimilars in inflammatory bowel diseases: general concepts and clinical implications. In Azevedo VFF, Moots R (eds), Biosimilars. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100452
Filipi M, Jack S (2020) Interferons in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability update. Int J MS Care 22(4):165–172. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2018-063
Findeisen KE, Sewell J, Ostor AJK (2021) Biological therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview for the clinician. Biologics 15:343–352. https://doi.org/10.2147/BTT.S252575
Fleischmann RM, Bock AE, Zhang W, Godfrey CM, Vranic I, Cronenberger C, Dokoupilová E (2022) Usability study of PF-06410293, an adalimumab biosimilar, by prefilled pen: open-label, single-arm, sub-study of a phase 3 trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Ther 9(3):839–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-022-00439-8
Frampton JE (2017) Ocrelizumab: first global approval. Drugs 77(9):1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-017-0757-6
Franken M, Kanters T, Coenen J, de Jong P, Jager A, Uyl-de Groot C (2020) Hospital-based or home-based administration of oncology drugs? A micro-costing study comparing healthcare and societal costs of hospital-based and home-based subcutaneous administration of trastuzumab. The Breast 52:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.05.001
Freshwater T, Kondic A, Ahamadi M, Li CH, de Greef R, de Alwis D, Stone JA (2017) Evaluation of dosing strategy for pembrolizumab for oncology indications. J Immunother Cancer 16(5):43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-017-0242-5
Frost GI (2007) Recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20): an enabling platform for subcutaneous drug and fluid administration. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 4(4):427–440. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.4.4.427
Galvão TF, Livinalli A, Lopes LC, Zimmermann IR, Silva MT (2020) Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD013539. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013539
Gao JJ, Osgood CL, Gong Y, Zhang H, Bloomquist EW, Jiang X, Qiu J, Yu J, Song P, Rahman NA, Chiu HJ, Ricks TK, Rizvi F, Hou S, Wilson W, Abukhdeir AM, Seidman J, Ghosh S, Philip R, Pierce WF, Bhatnagar V, Kluetz PG, Pazdur R, Beaver JA, Amiri-Kordestani L (2021) FDA approval summary: pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf injection for subcutaneous use in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 27(8):2126–2129. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3474
Garg A, Quartino A, Li J, Jin J, Wada DR, Li H, Cortés J, McNally V, Ross G, Visich J, Lum B (2014) Population pharmacokinetic and covariate analysis of pertuzumab, a HER2-targeted monoclonal antibody, and evaluation of a fixed, non-weight-based dose in patients with a variety of solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 74(4):819–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-014-2560-3
Garnock-Jones KP (2014) Alemtuzumab: a review of its use in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Drugs 74:489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-014-0195-7
Gely C, Marín L, Gordillo J, Mañosa M, Bertoletti F, Cañete F, González-Muñoza C, Calafat M, Domènech E, Garcia-Planella E (2019) Impact of pain associated with the subcutaneous administration of adalimumab. Gastroenterol Hepatol 43(1):9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastre.2019.06.008
Genentech (2013) FDA approves the ACTpen for Genentech’s ACTEMRA, a single-dose, prefilled autoinjector for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, giant cell arteritis and two forms of juvenile arthritis. https://www.gene.com/media/press-releases/14767/2018-11-26/fda-approves-the-actpen-for-genentechs-a. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Ghil J, Zielińska A, Lee Y (2019) Usability and safety of SB5 (an adalimumab biosimilar) prefilled syringe and autoinjector in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Curr Med Res Opin 35(3):497–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1560211
Gligorov J, Pivot X, Ataseven B, De Laurentiis M, Jung KH, Manikhas A, Abdel Azim H, Gupta K, Alexandrou A, Herraez-Baranda L, Tosti N, Restuccia E (2022) Safety and efficacy of adjuvant subcutaneous trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer: Final results of the SafeHER study. Breast 64:151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2022.03.001
Gottlieb AB, Blauvelt A, Prinz JC, Papanastasiou P, Pathan R, Nyirady J, Fox T, Papavassilis C (2016) Secukinumab self-administration by prefilled syringe maintains reduction of plaque psoriasis severity over 52 weeks: results of the FEATURE trial. J Drugs Dermatol 15(10):1226–1234
Gozzetti A, Bacchiarri F, Sammartano V, Defina M, Sicuranza A, Mecacci B, Zappone E, Cencini E, Fabbri A, Raspadori D, Bocchia M (2020) Long-term safety of rapid daratumumab infusions in multiple myeloma patients. Front Oncol 21(10):570187. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.570187
Graham AH (2009) "Administering rituximab: infusion-related reactions and nursing implications. Cancer Nurs Pract 8(2):30–35. https://doi.org/10.7748/cnp2009.03.8.2.30.c6842
Grainger R, Townsley H, White B, Langlotz T, Taylor WJ (2017) Apps for people with rheumatoid arthritis to monitor their disease activity: a review of apps for best practice and quality. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 5(2):e7. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6956
Gupta S, Kumar P (2012) Drug delivery using nanocarriers: Indian perspective. Proc Natl Acad Sci, India, Sect B Biol Sci 82:167–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-012-0080-7
Hake P, Rehse JR, Fettke P (2019) Supporting complaint management in the medical technology industry by means of deep learning. In: Di Francescomarino C, Hanna KS, Segal EM, Barlow A, Barlow B (2021) Clinical strategies for optimizing infusion center care through a pandemic. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 27(1):165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155220960211
Hampson G, Towse A, Dreitlein WB, Henshall C, Pearson SD (2018) Real-world evidence for coverage decisions: opportunities and challenges. J Comp Eff Res 7(12):1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0066
Hanna KS, Segal EM, Barlow A, Barlow B (2021) Clinical strategies for optimizing infusion center care through a pandemic. J Oncol Pharm Pract 27(1):165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155220960211
Hartung HP, Berger T, Bermel RA, Brochet B, Carroll WM, Holmøy T, Karabudak R, Killestein J, Nos C, Patti F, Ross AP, Vanopdenbosch L, Vollmer T, Buffels R, Garas M, Kadner K, Manfrini M, Wang Q, Freedman MS (2020) Shorter infusion time of ocrelizumab: results from the randomized, double-blind ENSEMBLE PLUS substudy in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 46:102492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2020.102492
Hendrikx J, Haanen J, Voest EE, Schellens J, Huitema A, Beijnen JH (2017) Fixed dosing of monoclonal antibodies in oncology. Oncologist 22(10):1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0167
Henricks LM, Schellens JH, Huitema AD, Beijnen JH (2015) The use of combinations of monoclonal antibodies in clinical oncology. Cancer Treat Rev 41(10):859–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.10.008
Hernandez I, Bott SW, Patel AS, Wolf CG, Hospodar AR, Sampathkumar S, Shrank WH (2018) Pricing of monoclonal antibody therapies: higher if used for cancer? Am J Manag Care 24(2):109–112
Hiramatsu K, Barrett A, Miyata Y (2021) Current status, challenges, and future perspectives of real-world data and real-world evidence in Japan. Drugs - Real World Outcomes 8:459–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-021-00266-3
Holmes MM, Stanescu S, Bishop FL (2019) The use of measurement systems to support patient self-management of long-term conditions: an overview of opportunities and challenges. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 10:385–394. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S178488
Huynh TK, Ostergaard A, Egsmose C, Madsen OR (2014) Preferences of patients and health professionals for route and frequency of administration of biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Prefer Adher 8:93–99. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S55156
Jackisch C, Stroyakovskiy D, Pivot X, Ahn JS, Melichar B, Chen SC, Meyenberg C, Al-Sakaff N, Heinzmann D, Hegg R (2019) Subcutaneous vs intravenous trastuzumab for patients with ERBB2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of the HannaH phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 5(5):e190339. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0339
Jappe U, Beckert H, Bergmann KC, Gülsen A, Klimek L, Philipp S, Pickert J, Rauber-Ellinghaus MM, Renz H, Taube C, Treudler R, Wagenmann M, Werfel T, Worm M, Zuberbier T (2021) Biologics for atopic diseases: Indication, side effect management, and new developments. Allergologie Select 5:1–25. https://doi.org/10.5414/ALX02197E
Jiskoot W, Hawe A, Menzen T, Volkin DB, Crommelin DJA (2022) Ongoing challenges to develop high concentration monoclonal antibody-based formulations for subcutaneous administration: quo vadis? J Pharm Sci 111(4):861–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2021.11.008
Kading M, Beck B (2021) Cost analysis of daratumumab therapy: Is there a cost benefit to using the recently approved subcutaneous product versus the IV product? J Oncol Pharm Pract 27(4):978–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078155221993218
Kafatos G, Dube S, Burdon P, Lowe K, Leclerc M, Flinois A, Demonty G (2020) The healthcare professionals’ perspective on impact and actions taken following severe infusion reaction events in oncology centers in Europe. Drugs Real World Outcomes 7(2):119–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-020-00185-9
Keininger D, Coteur G (2011) Assessment of self-injection experience in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: psychometric validation of the self-injection assessment questionnaire (SIAQ). Health Qual Life Outcomes 13(9):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-2
Kempton C, Trask P, Parnes A, Niggli M, Campinha-Bacote A, Callaghan MU, O’Connell N, Paz-Priel I, Mahlang JN (2021) Development and testing of the satisfaction questionnaire with intravenous or subcutaneous hemophilia injection and results from the phase 3 HAVEN 3 study of emicizumab prophylaxis in persons with haemophilia A without FVIII inhibitors. Haemophilia 27(2):221–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.14222
Kieseier BC (2011) The mechanism of action of interferon-β in relapsing multiple sclerosis. CNS Drugs 25(6):491–502. https://doi.org/10.2165/11591110-000000000-00000
Kivitz A, Cohen S, Dowd JE, Edwards W, Thakker S, Wellborne FR, Renz CL, Segurado OG (2006) Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH trial. Clin Ther 28(10):1619–1629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.10.006
Kivitz A, Baret-Cormel L, van Hoogstraten H, Wang S, Parrino J, Xu C (2018) Stanislav M (2018) Usability and patient preference phase 3 study of the sarilumab pen in patients with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Ther 5:231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-017-0090-2
Kuzman D, Bunc M, Ravnik M, Reiter F, Žagar L, Bončina M (2021) Long-term stability predictions of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in solution using Arrhenius-based kinetics. Sci Rep 11(1):20534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99875-9
Kvien TK, Patel K, Strand V (2022) The cost savings of biosimilars can help increase patient access and lift the financial burden of health care systems. Semin Arthritis Rheum 52:151939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.11.009
Lacorte E, Ancidoni A, Zaccaria V, Remoli G, Tariciotti L, Bellomo G, Sciancalepore F, Corbo M, Lombardo FL, Bacigalupo I, Canevelli M, Piscopo P, Vanacore N (2022) Safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished clinical trials. J Alzheimers Dis 87(1):101–129. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-220046
Lageat C, Combedazou A, Ramus C, Guerrero K, Frolet C, Glezer S (2021) Formative and validation human factors studies of a new disposable autoinjector for subcutaneous delivery of chronic disease therapies. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 18(11):1761–1775. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2021.1954906
Lala M, Ruosi Li T, de Alwis DP, Sinha V, Mayawala M, Yamamoto N, Siu LL, Chartash E, Aboshady H, Jain L (2020) A six-weekly dosing schedule for pembrolizumab in patients with cancer based on evaluation using modelling and simulation. Eur J Cancer 131:68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.02.016
Lambrecht A, Vuillerme N, Raab C, Simon D, Messner EM, Hagen M, Bayat S, Kleyer A, Aubourg T, Schett G, Hueber A, Knitza J (2021) Quality of a supporting mobile app for rheumatic patients: patient-based assessment using the user version of the mobile application scale (uMARS). Front Med (lausanne) 22(8):715345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.715345
Lanzillo R, Quarantelli M, Bonavita S, Ventrella G, Lus G, Vacca G, Prinster A, Orefice G, Tedeschi G, Brescia Morra V (2012) Natalizumab vs interferon beta 1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a head-to-head retrospective study. Acta Neurol Scand 126(5):306–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01622.x
Li Z, Easton R (2018) Practical considerations in clinical strategy to support the development of injectable drug-device combination products for biologics. Mabs 10(1):18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2017.1392424
Limmroth V, Reischl J, Mann B, Morosov X, Kokoschka A, Weller I, Schreiner T (2017) Autoinjector preference among patients with multiple sclerosis: results from a national survey. Patient Prefer Adherence 11:1325–1334. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S137741
Longtin Y, Sax H, Leape SSE, Donaldson L, Pittet D (2010) Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety. Mayo Clin Proc 85(1):53–62. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2009.0248
López PA, Alonso R, Silva B, Carnero Contentti E (2021) Natalizumab subcutaneous injection for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis patients: a new delivery route. Mult Scler Relat Disord 55:103179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2021.103179
Lu RM, Hwang YC, Liu IJ, Lee CC, Tsai HZ, Li HJ, Wu HC (2020) Development of therapeutic antibodies for the treatment of diseases. J Biomed Sci 27:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-019-0592-z
Lugaresi A, Florio C, Brescia-Morra V, Cottone S, Bellantonio P, Clerico M, Centonze D, Uccelli A, di Ioia M, De Luca G, Marcellusi A, Paolillo A (2012) Patient adherence to and tolerability of self-administered interferon β-1a using an electronic autoinjection device: a multicentre, open-label, phase IV study. BMC Neurol 12:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-12-7
Mahler HC, Senner F, Maeder K, Mueller R (2009) Surface activity of a monoclonal antibody. J Pharm Sci 98(12):4525–4533. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21776
Mao EJ, Lewin S, Terdiman JP, Beck K (2018) Safety of dual biological therapy in Crohn’s disease: a case series of vedolizumab in combination with other biologics. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 5:e000243. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2018-000243
Marušić M, Klemenčić A (2018) Adalimumab – general considerations. J Pharmacol Clin Toxicol 6(2):1104
Mathaes R, Koulov A, Joerg S, Mahler HC (2016) Subcutaneous injection volume of biopharmaceuticals—pushing the boundaries. J Pharm Sci 105(8):2255–2259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2016.05.029
Melsheimer R, Geldhof A, Apaolaza I, Schaible T (2019) Remicade® (infliximab): 20 years of contributions to science and medicine. Biologics 13:139–178. https://doi.org/10.2147/BTT.S207246
Menge T, Rehberg-Weber K, Taipale K, Nastos I, Jauß M (2021) Peginterferon beta-1a was associated with high adherence and satisfaction in patients with multiple sclerosis in a German real-world study. Ther Adv Neurol Disord eCollection. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562864211000461
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018) Ocrelizumab for treating relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. Available via technology appraisal guidance [TA533]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta533. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2021). Ofatumumab for treating relapsing multiple sclerosis. Available via technology appraisal guidance [TA699]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta699. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
New R (2020) Oral delivery of biologics via the intestine. Pharmaceutics 13(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13010018
Nieto JC, Arajol C, Carmona L, Marras C, Cea-Calvo L (2021) Adherence to subcutaneous biological therapies in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review. Immunotherapy 13(5):433–458. https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2021-0011
O’Shaughnessy J, Sousa S, Cruz J, Fallowfield L, Auvinen P, Pulido C, Cvetanovic A, Wilks S, Ribeiro L, Burotto M, Klingbiel D, Messeri D, Alexandrou A, Trask P, Fredriksson J, Machackova Z, Stamatovic L (2021) Preference for the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHranceSCa): a randomised, open-label phase II study. Eur J Cancer 152:223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.03.047
Paci A, Desnoyer A, Delahousse J, Blondel L, Maritaz C, Chaput N, Mir O, Broutin S (2020) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies used in oncology: Part 1, monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates and bispecific T-cell engagers. Eur J Cancer 128:107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.01.005
Pardo-Jaramillo S, Muñoz-Villamizar A, Osuna I, Roncancio R (2020) Mapping research on customer centricity and sustainable organizations. Sustainability 12(19):7908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197908
Park J, Lee CH (2021) Clinical study using healthcare claims database. J Rheum Dis 28:119–125. https://doi.org/10.4078/jrd.2021.28.3.119
Park D, Kim J, Yun J, Park SJ (2020) Evaluation of the physico-chemical and biological stability of SB8 (Aybintio), a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab, under ambient and in-use conditions. Adv Ther 37(10):4308–4324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01465-0
Patel AS, Luu P (2020) Changes in patient reported pain measures with the citrate-free adalimumab formulation in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease patients. JPGN Reports 1(2):e016. https://doi.org/10.1097/PG9.0000000000000016
Patel KB, Arantes LH Jr, Tang WY, Fung S (2018) The role of biosimilars in value-based oncology care. Cancer Manag Res 17(10):4591–4602. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S164201
Peng Y, Wu T, Chen Z, Deng Z (2022) Value cocreation in health care: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 24(3):e33061. https://doi.org/10.2196/33061
Perry M, Jang M (2020) Budget impact analysis of introducing subcutaneous infliximab CT-P13 SC from the UK payer perspective (AB1185). Ann Rheum Dis 79:1879
Perumal JS, Foo F, Cook P, Khan O (2012) Subcutaneous administration of alemtuzumab in patients with highly active multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 18(8):1197–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458511435716
Peterson GM, Thomas J, Yee KC, Kosari S, Naunton M, Olesen IH (2018) Monoclonal antibody therapy in cancer: when two is better (and considerably more expensive) than one. J Clin Pharm Ther 43:925–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpt.12750
Intract Pharma (2020) Intract Pharma Limited and Celltrion Group announce collaboration for development of oral Infliximab. Available via Intract pharma. https://www.intractpharma.com/2020/08/20/intract-pharma-limited-and-celltrion-group-announce-collaboration-for-development-of-oral-infliximab/. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Philippart M, Schmidt J, Bittner B (2016) Oral delivery of therapeutic proteins and peptides: an overview of current technologies and recommendations for bridging from approved intravenous or subcutaneous administration to novel oral regimens. Drug Res 66(3):113–120. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1559654
Pidun U, Knust N, Kawohl J, Avramakis E, Klar A (2021) The untapped potential of ecosystems in health care. In: BCG Henderson Institute Newsletter: Insights that are shaping business thinking. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2021/five-principles-of-highly-successful-health-care-ecosystems. Accessed 17 Aug 2022.
Pierpont TM, Limper CB, Richards KL (2018) Past, present, and future of rituximab-the world’s first oncology monoclonal antibody therapy. Front Oncol 4(8):163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00163
Pivot X, Gligorov J, Müller V, Curigliano G, Knoop A, Verma S, Jenkins V, Scotto N, Osborne S, Fallowfield L (2014) Patients’ preferences for subcutaneous trastuzumab versus conventional intravenous infusion for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of 488 patients in the international, randomized, two-cohort PrefHer study. Ann Oncol 25(10):1979–1987. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu364
Pouls BPH, Kristensen LE, Petersson M, van den Bemt BJF, Ballerini L, Bruggraber R, Karlen H, Mountian I, van Bracht E, Wiegratz S, Jørgensen TS (2020) A pilot study examining patient preference and satisfaction for ava®, a reusable electronic injection device to administer certolizumab pegol. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 17(5):705–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2020.1736552
Radu AF, Bungau SG (2021) Management of rheumatoid arthritis: an overview. Cells 10(11):2857. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10112857
Raffaelli B, Neeb L, Reuter U (2019) Monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of migraine. Expert Opin Biol Ther 19(12):1307–1317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2019.1671350
Rath L, Campagna MP, Stankovich J, Ellis J, Jokubaitis V, McCarthy D, Nesbitt C, Yeh WZ, Zhong M, Wesselingh R, Monif M, Richards J, Minh VB, Skibina O, Butzkueven H, van der Walt A (2021) Patient preferences for time and location of infusible therapies in multiple sclerosis and neuroimmunologic disorders. Int J MS Care 23(3):114–118. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2020-075
Räuber S, Pawlitzki M, Korsen M, Kullmann JS, Thoene D, Pfeuffer S, Rolfes L, Nelke C, Melzer N, Ruck T, Meuth SG (2022) A national, multi-center study in Germany to assess implementation of infusion management, treatment satisfaction and quality of life in MS patients receiving alemtuzumab. Mult Scler Relat Disord 59:103670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2022.103670
Remington G, Rodriguez Y, Logan D, Williamson C, Treadaway K (2013) Facilitating medication adherence in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care 15(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2011-038
Rémuzat C, Kapuśniak A, Caban A, Ionescu D, Radière G, Mendoza C, Toumi M (2017) Supply-side and demand-side policies for biosimilars: an overview in 10 European member states. J Mark Access Health Policy 5(1):1307315. https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2017.1307315
Ridyard CH, Dawoud DM, Tuersley LV, Hughes DA (2016) A systematic review of patients’ perspectives on the subcutaneous route of medication administration. Patient 9(4):281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0160-x
Rocco P, Kelly AS, Béland D, Kinane M (2017) The new politics of US health care prices: institutional reconfiguration and the emergence of all-payer claims databases. J Health Polit Policy Law 42(1):5–52. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-3702746
Rombouts MD, Swart EL, Van Den Eertwegh AJM, Crul M (2020) Systematic review on infusion reactions to and infusion rate of monoclonal antibodies used in cancer treatment. Anticancer Res 40(3):1201–1218. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14062
Rose J (2021) Subcutaneous infliximab in the U.S.: defining CT-P13 SC's competitive edge. In: Biosimilar Development. https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/subcutaneous-infliximab-in-the-u-s-defining-ct-p-sc-s-competitive-edge-0001. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Ross A, Besser C, Naval S, Stoneman D, Gaunt H, Barker N (2021) Patient and Nurse preference for Sensoready® autoinjector pen versus other autoinjectors in multiple sclerosis: results from a multicenter survey. ePoster presented at the virtual ACTRIMS Forum, 25–27 February 2021.
Roy A, Geetha RV, Magesh A, Vijayaraghavan R, Ravichandran V (2021) Autoinjector: a smart device for emergency cum personal therapy. Saudi Pharm J 29(10):1205–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2021.09.004
Ruck T, Bittner S, Wiendl H, Meuth SG (2015) Alemtuzumab in multiple sclerosis: mechanism of action and beyond. Inti J Mol Sci 16(7):16414–16439. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms160716414
Rudick RA, Panzara MA (2008) Natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Biologics 2(2):189–199. https://doi.org/10.2147/btt.s1956
Rudick RA, Polman C, Clifford D, Miller D, Steinman L (2013) Natalizumab: bench to bedside and beyond. JAMA Neurol 70(2):172–182. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.598
Rummel M, Kim TM, Aversa F, Brugger W, Capochiani E, Plenteda C, Re F, Trask P, Osborne S, Smith R, Grigg A (2017) Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab). Ann Oncol 28(4):836–842. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw685
Salar A, Avivi I, Bittner B, Bouabdallah R, Brewster M, Catalani O, Follows G, Haynes A, Hourcade-Potelleret F, Janikova A, Larouche JF, McIntyre C, Pedersen M, Pereira J, Sayyed P, Shpilberg O, Tumyan G (2014) Comparison of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of rituximab as maintenance treatment for follicular lymphoma: results from a two-stage, phase IB study. J Clin Oncol 32(17):1782–1791. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.2631
Schreiber S, Ben-Horin S, Alten R, Westhovens R, Peyrin-Biroulet L, Danese S, Hibi T, Takeuchi K, Magro F, An Y, Kim DH, Yoon SW, Reinisch W (2022) Perspectives on subcutaneous infliximab for rheumatic diseases and inflammatory bowel disease: before, during, and after the COVID-19 era. Adv Ther 39:2342–2364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01990-6
Schultz TJ, Thomas A, Georgiou P, Cusack L, Juaton M, Simon L, Naidoo K, Webb K, Karnon J, Ravindran J (2019) Developing a model of care for home infusions of natalizumab for people with multiple sclerosis. J Infus Nurs 42(6):289–296. https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000343
Schultz TJ, Thomas A, Georgiou P, Juaton MS, Cusack L, Simon L, Naidoo K, Webb K, Karnon J, Ravindran J (2021) Home infusions of natalizumab for people with multiple sclerosis: a pilot randomised crossover trial. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 8:1610–1621. https://doi.org/10.1002/acn3.51410
Schulze-Koops H, Giacomelli R, Samborski W, Rednic S, Herold M, Yao R, Govoni M, Vastesaeger N, Weng HH (2013) THU0198 patient evaluations of autoinjectors for delivery of subcutaneous golimumab for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 72:A230–A231
Sebastian S, Roberts J, Waller J, Judge D, Brown C, Davies R, Kachroo S (2019) Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes in ulcerative colitis: a prospective real-world pilot study. PharmacoEconomics - Open 3(3):359–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0121-8
Sedo K (2018) 2017 Global Drug Delivery & Formulation Report: Part 2, Notable Product Approvals of 2017. In: Drug Development and Delivery. https://drug-dev.com/global-report-2017-global-drug-delivery-formulation-report-part-2-notable-product-approvals-of-2017/. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
Senolt L (2019) Emerging therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: focus on monoclonal antibodies [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 8:1549. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18688.1
Shams S, Martinez JM, Dawson JRD, Flores J, Gabriel M, Garcia G, Guevara A, Murray K, Pacifici N, Vargas MV, Voelker T, Hell JW, Ashouri JF (2021) The therapeutic landscape of rheumatoid arthritis: current state and future directions. Front Pharmacol 12:680043. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.680043
Shelbaya A, Kelton JM, Thompson J, Alvir JM, Maculaitis MC, Yang J (2021) Real-world use and acceptance of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies of rituximab in oncology practice in the USA. Future Oncol 17(30):3941–3950. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2021-0618
Shetty A, Hanson R, Korsten P, Shawagfeh M, Arami S, Volkov S, Vila O, Swedler W, Shunaigat AN, Smadi S, Sawaqed R, Perkins D, Shahrara S, Sweiss NJ (2014) Tocilizumab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and beyond. Drug Des Devel Ther 28(8):349–364. https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S41437
Smale EM, Egberts TC, Heerdink ER, van den Bemt BJF, Bekker CL (2021) Waste-minimising measures to achieve sustainable supply and use of medication. Sustain Chem Pharm 20:100400. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCP.2021.100400
Spadaro G, Vultaggio A, Alberto Bosi A, Reichert D, Janssen J, Lamacchia D, Nappi L, Pecoraro A, Milito C, Ferraro A, Matucci A, Bacchiarri F, Carrai V, Hibbeler A, Speckman E, Guarnieri C, Bongiovanni S, Quinti I (2017) Rapid infusions of human normal immunoglobulin 50g/l are safe and well tolerated in immunodeficiencies and immune thrombocytopenia. Int Immunopharmacol 44:38–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2016.12.030
St Clair-Jones A, Prignano F, Goncalves J, Paul M, Sewerin P (2020) Understanding and minimising injection-site pain following subcutaneous administration of biologics: a narrative review. Rheumatol Ther 7(4):741–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-020-00245-0
Stahnke AM, Holt KM (2018) Ocrelizumab: a new B-cell therapy for relapsing remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Pharmacother 52(5):473–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060028017747635
Stearns LJ, Narang S, Albright RE Jr, Hammond K, Xia Y, Richter HB, Paramanandam GK, Haagenson KK, Doth AH (2019) Assessment of health care utilization and cost of targeted drug delivery and conventional medical management vs conventional medical management alone for patients with cancer-related pain. JAMA Netw Open 2(4):e191549. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1549
Strik AS, Wang YMC, Ruff LE, Yashar W, Messmer BT, Mould DR (2018) Individualized dosing of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies—a changing treatment paradigm? AAPS J 20:99. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-018-0257-y
Tambuyzer E, Vandendriessche B, Austin CP, Brooks PJ, Larsson K, Miller Needleman KI, Valentine J, Davies K, Groft SC, Preti R, Oprea TI, Prunotto M (2020) Therapies for rare diseases: therapeutic modalities, progress and challenges ahead. Nat Rev Drug Discov 19(2):93–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-019-0049-9
Tat R, Heydari J (2021) Avoiding medicine wastes: introducing a sustainable approach in the pharmaceutical supply chain. J Clean Prod 320:128698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128698
Teisberg E, Wallace S, O’Hara S (2020) Defining and implementing value-based health care: a strategic framework. Acad Med 95(5):682–685. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003122
Tetteh EK, Morris S (2014) Evaluating the administration costs of biologic drugs: development of a cost algorithm. Health Econ Rev 4:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-014-0026-2
Thakur K, Biberger A, Handrich A, Rezk MF (2016) Perceptions and preferences of two etanercept autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: a new European Union-approved etanercept biosimilar (Benepali®) versus etanercept (Enbrel®) - findings from a nurse survey in Europe. Rheumatol Ther 3(1):77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-016-0035-1
Timbie JW, Kim AY, Concannon TW (2021) Use of real-world evidence for regulatory approval and coverage of medical devices: a landscape assessment. Value Health 24(12):1792–1798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2021.07.003
Timmermann H, Mailänder C (2020) Home self-administration of biologics - a German survey among omalizumab-treated patients with severe asthma and their treating physicians. Pneumologie 74(2):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1069-0900
Tischer B, Mehl A (2018) Patients’ and nurses’ preferences for autoinjectors for rheumatoid arthritis: results of a European survey. Patient Prefer Adherence 12:1413–1424. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S169339
Tiwari G, Tiwari R, Sriwastawa B, Bhati L, Pandey S, Pandey P, Bannerjee SK (2012) Drug delivery systems: an updated review. Int J Pharm Investig 2(1):2–11. https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-973X.96920
Tkacz J, Ellis L, Bolge SC, Meyer R, Brady BL, Ruetsch C (2014) Utilization and adherence patterns of subcutaneously administered anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Clin Ther 36(5):737–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.02.019
UCB (2021). UCB Gains CE Mark for ava Connect[®], a first-in-class electromechanical device for use with biologic treatment in rheumatology and dermatology. https://www.ucb.com/stories-media/Press-Releases/article/UCB-Gains-CE-Mark-for-ava-Connect-a-first-in-class-electromechanical-device-for-use-with-biologic-treatment-in-rheumatology-and-dermatology. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2017) Biosimilar and interchangeable products. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-and-interchangeable-products#interchange. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2018) Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on FDA’s new strategic framework to advance use of real-world evidence to support development of drugs and biologics. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-fdas-new-strategic-framework-advance-use-real-world. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2020) FDA approves breast cancer treatment that can be administered at home by health care professional. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-breast-cancer-treatment-can-be-administered-home-health-care-professional. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2021) FDA approves Cyltezo, the first interchangeable biosimilar to Humira. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-cyltezo-first-interchangeable-biosimilar-humira. Accessed 20 Aug 2022.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2022a). Drugs@FDA: FDA-Approved Drugs. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm. Accessed 20 Aug 2022a.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2022b). Real-World Evidence. https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/real-world-evidence. Accessed 20 Aug 2022b.
United States Food and Drug Administration (2022c). Biosimilar Product Information. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-product-information. Accessed 20 Aug 2022c.
Usmani SZ, Mateos MV, Hungria V, Iida S, Bahlis NJ, Nahi H, Magen H, Cavo M, Hulin C, White D, De Stefano V, Fastenau J, Slavcev M, Heuck C, Qin X, Pei H, Masterson T, Lantz K, Gries KS (2021) Greater treatment satisfaction in patients receiving daratumumab subcutaneous vs. intravenous for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: COLUMBA clinical trial results. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 147:619–631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03365-w
Van den Bemt BJF, Gettings L, Domańska B, Bruggraber R, Mountian I, Kristensen LE (2019) A portfolio of biologic self-injection devices in rheumatology: how patient involvement in device design can improve treatment experience. Drug Deliv 26(1):384–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10717544.2019.1587043
Verma AM, Patel A, Subramanian S, Smith PJ (2021) From intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a pandemic-driven initiative. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 6(2):88–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30392-7
Vermeire S, D'heygere F, Nakad A, Franchimont D, Fontaine F, Louis E, Van Hootegem P, Dewit O, Lambrecht G, Strubbe B, Baert F. (2018). Preference for a prefilled syringe or an auto-injection device for delivering golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a randomized crossover study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 6(12):1193-1202. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S154181.
Vieillard V, Paul N, Ibrahim T, Astier A (2017) Extended stability of the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 in its opened vials and after dilution and storage in polyolefin bags. Ann Pharm Fr 75(6):420–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharma.2017.06.003
Vijayan S, Adams J, Cook L, Haskins Z, Kermode A (2017) Establishment of the first at-home natalizumab infusion service for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 88:e1
Vijayaraghavan R (2020) Autoinjector device for rapid administration of drugs and antidotes in emergency situations and in mass casualty management. J Int Med Res 8(5):300060520926019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060520926019
Weinstock-Guttman B, Bermel R, Cutter G, Freedman MS, Leist TP, Ma X, Kile D, Musch B, Reder AT, Wolinsky JS (2022) Ocrelizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis after a suboptimal response to previous disease-modifying therapy: a nonrandomized controlled trial. Mult Scler 28(5):790–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585211035740
Wolfromm A, Mittaine B, Gandrille N, Dallemagne J, Delarue R (2017) Home administration of subcutaneous rituximab is safe and associated with significant cost saving: a single center experience. Blood 130(1):4676. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V130.Suppl_1.4676.4676
Wyant T, Fedyk E, Abhyankar B (2016) An Overview of the mechanism of action of the monoclonal antibody vedolizumab. Journal Crohns Colitis 10(12):1437–1444. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw092
Yelvington BJ (2018) Subcutaneous rituximab in follicular lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Adv Pract Oncol 9(5):530–534
Zadbuke N, Shahi S, Gulecha B, Padalkar A, Thube M (2013) Recent trends and future of pharmaceutical packaging technology. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 5(2):98–110. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.111820
Zahavi D, Weiner L (2020) Monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy. Antibodies 9(3):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/antib9030034
Zhang W, Michalowski CB, Beloqui A (2021) Oral delivery of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease treatment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 3(9):675194
We thank Johannes Schmidt from F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. for thorough review of the manuscript.
Beate Bittner is employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche and owns stock in Roche.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bittner, B. Customer-centric product presentations for monoclonal antibodies. AAPS Open 9, 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41120-022-00069-y
- Customer centricity
- Flexible care setting
- Product optimization