Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5400_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
15 Мб
Скачать
☆
This review will focus on the advances in knowledge and frontiers for dry powder pulmonary delivery of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Some background required to support the review of this ield will include tenets of pulmonary delivery, processing of pharmaceutical powders for inhalation, and general formulation knowledge for biologics.
Pulmonary delivery of aerosolized active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) has been explored in various forms for centuries. Despite its widespread adoption, challenges remain for pulmonary delivery in the areas of ease of device use and reliable dosing, both impacting patient compliance [1]. The development of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) in the 1950s for delivery of atomized solutions created a paradigm shift in the ield since they were small, inexpensive, and could be used at home [2]. However, incorrect MDI operations resulting in improper dosing by patients led to the rise of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) as an alternative technology in the 1980s [3]. Unlike MDIs, DPIs utilize aerosolized powders and rely on patient inhalation for delivery, eliminating the complex synchronization of patient breath and device actuation associated with MDIs. An additional advantage of DPIs compared with MDIs is that they are propellant-free.
Pulmonary delivery of proteins and nebulizer delivery of mAb are discussed extensively in other chapters of this book. Nebulizers have been primarily used as the standard pulmonary delivery device for mAb therapeutics. In recent years, delivery by DPI has been studied as a way to reduce the treatment burden on the patient while enabling product storage at ambient temperatures instead of frozen solutions. This review will discuss the advantages and challenges of dry powder pulmonary delivery of mAbs.
Regulatoryrequirementsforinhaledproducts
Any DPI product iling (small molecule or biologic) involves meeting various regulatory quality and eficacy requirements, which differ somewhat by region. For all DPI products, the drug product and its device are treated as a combination product. Additional regulations and/or critical quality attributes (CQAs) apply to inhaled biologic products, including future pulmonary mAb products. These guidances must be met across agencies such as the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to enable worldwide sales of a product [4, 5]. The speciications generally accepted as the union of these guidances are represented in Table 1. Note that “Additional tests likely for inhaled mAb” is speculative, as no inhaled mAb products have yet achieved approved status.
Table1 Quality attributes for inhaled pharmaceutical products [5, 6]
https://t.me/medicina_free
Quality attribute
Small molecule inhaled produ cts,US (FDA)
Small molecule inhaled produ cts,EU (EMA)
Additional testslikely forinhaled mAb
Commonmethodsfor testing
Description X X
Visual
Identiication X
Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), UV-vis spectroscopy, retention time (by liquid chromatography or gel electrophoresis)
Assay X X
UV-vis spectroscopy, retention time (liquid chromatography or gel electrophoresis)
Biological activity
X API speciic (surface
plasmon resonance, ELISA or cell-based assay)
Impurities and degradation products
X X
Liquid chromatography or gel electrophoresis
Aggregation
X Size-exclusion
chromatography (SEC) and/or dynamic light scattering
Aerodynamic particle size distribution
X X
Next Generation Impactor, Fast-Screening Impactor, breath actuators
Delivered Dose Uniformity (DDU)
X X
DDU apparatus USP<601>
Mean delivered dose
X
Number of actuations per container
X
Foreign particulate matter
X
Optical, laser diffraction
https://t.me/medicina_free
Quality attribute
Small molecule inhaled produ cts,US (FDA)
Small molecule inhaled produ cts,EU (EMA)
Additional testslikely forinhaled mAb
Commonmethodsfor testing
Microbial limits
X X
Moisture content
X X
Karl Fischer titration
Net content weight
X
In the preclinical studies referenced later in this chapter, there is a strong focus on evaluating the biologic activity, degradation, aggregation and aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) quality attributes. Tests that are most relevant for later-stage clinical products, such as delivered dose uniformity, microbial limits, and moisture content, will not be expanded upon in this chapter.
A primary focus for any inhaled pulmonary product is the eficient delivery of the API to the target region of the airway. For inhaled powders, the main critical quality attribute is APSD. The aerodynamic diameter of a particle is equal to the diameter of a unit-density sphere whose inertial settling velocity is equivalent [6]. It is measured by cascade impaction (e.g. Next Generation Impactor (NGI), Anderson Cascade Impactor, or Fast­Screening Impactor), and provides an assessment of how much active is delivered to the lung (assuming a 5 micron upper limit for lung delivery). Delivered dose uniformity, mean dose delivered, and number of actuations are also key measures to ensure an eficacious dose will reach patients.
Another primary consideration when evaluating an inhalation product involves the product’s potential immunogenicity. One test toward this risk is the foreign particulate matter measurement. These particles can come from excipients or the manufacturing process, but with mAb products there is an added complication of stability issues resulting in protein aggregation and potential for increased immunogenicity. The challenges and considerations associated with protein aggregates in inhaled biologics were recently highlighted by Ibrahim et al. [7]. Additionally, the microbial testing includes speciic microbes of interest to inhaled delivery, and these speciications are an order of magnitude below what is common for oral products as described in USP <1111>.
https://t.me/medicina_free
2 ManufacturingProces sOverview
Given the strict requirements for pulmonary delivery of powders, precise control over the manufacturing process is critical to achieving the desired aerosolization properties [8, 9]. In this section, we discuss the strategies for manufacturing any inhalation dry powders with a focus on biologics DPIs and speciically mAbs.
A common method to make aerosolizable powders of small molecules is mechanical milling. While this strategy is simple and cost-effective, it can be challenging due to the generation of electrostatic charges, inconsistent morphologies, and high surface energies that promote instability [10]. For proteins, milling is not a feasible particle engineering technique: mechanical and thermal forces from milling can denature proteins and impair their activity, and require API supply in the solid state [11]. Instead, particle engineering to deliver biotherapeutics to the lung is better accomplished via drying processes that start from a liquid feedstock. This section will introduce many drying techniques while focusing on spray drying, spray­freeze drying, and thin ilm freezing, which were also addressed in more detail in a recent review article [12].
2.1 SprayDrying
Developed originally in the early twentieth century for the production of powdered milk products in the dairy industry, spray drying is a scalable manufacturing technique that has become a common unit operation in many industries [13]. A schematic of the spray drying process is shown in Fig. 1. In a pharmaceutical spray drying process, API and excipients are co-dissolved in a volatile solvent. The liquid feed is pumped into a drying chamber through an atomizer, where small liquid droplets are formed. The droplets come into contact with heated drying gas, which rapidly removes solvent from the droplets. In this way, solid particles are formed and subsequently collected from the outlet gas stream using cyclonic separators, ilter banks, or a combination thereof. Notably, spray drying has been employed in manufacturing of at least 24 commercially-approved products [14]. Speciically for particle engineering toward inhalable therapies, the use of spray drying as a particle engineering tool has been extensively reviewed by Vehring [6].
https://t.me/medicina_free
Fig.1 Schematic of the spray drying process
For the manufacture of dry powder inhalation dosage forms, spray drying is particularly valuable as it accomplishes both the particle engineering and formulation steps in a single unit operation. The use of spray drying to manufacture dry powders for pulmonary drug delivery has been reviewed multiple times over the past 15 years [15–17]. Spray-dried products for pulmonary delivery include: Tobi Podhaler (tobramycin, DPI), Inbrija (levadopa, DPI), Exubera (insulin, DPI), Afrezza (insulin, DPI), Cayston (aztreonam, reconstituted and nebulized), Bronchitol (mannitol, DPI), Aerovanc (vancomycin, DPI), and Inavir (laninamivir, DPI) [14, 16, 18].
Most of the discussion in this chapter will focus on spray drying as a manufacturing technique, as it represents the majority of the work in the ield
https://t.me/medicina_free
of inhaled biologic development. Detailed process and formulation considerations for spray drying of mAbs are discussed later in this chapter.
2.2 AlternateManufacturingProcesses
Rather than relying on forced, heated drying gas to remove water from the solution, spray-freeze drying and thin ilm freezing rely on cooled environments, similar to a lyophilization-based drying step. The spray-freeze drying process begins with atomization of a solution stream directly into a cryogenic chamber to freeze the particles. These particles are then lyophilized to remove the solvent and isolate solid particles [19]. Spray-freeze drying has the ability to create formulations with particle sizes and densities amenable to inhaled delivery. A recent review covered the application of this process to inhaled biotherapeutics in detail [20]. In an early study, Maa et al. compared spray drying and spray-freeze drying technologies for an anti-IgE mAb, inding that spray-freeze drying produced larger, low-density particles with high ine particle fraction [21]. Scale-up to clinical and commercial-scale equipment is underway for spray-freeze drying of pharmaceutical products (including an aseptic system, Lyninity, now commercially available), but it is not yet as readily scalable or energy-eficient as spray drying at this time.
Thin ilm freezing (TFF) is a recently-developed platform to achieve small respirable particles of delicate molecules such as monoclonal antibodies [22]. In TFF, a liquid protein solution is applied to a cryogenic drum and rapidly frozen. Next, lyophilization is performed to remove the solvent, forming brittle matrix particles that can aerosolize upon inhalation. TFF has shown promise, particularly for particle engineering of proteins that are sensitive to air-water interfaces during atomization such as lactoferrin [23].
In a variation on the traditional spray drying process, electrostatic spray drying applies a charge to the liquid droplets as they form within the atomizer. The charge aids in driving water out of the atomized droplets, reducing the need for heated atomization gas. Thus, electrostatic atomization could help reduce water content in a powdered product while potentially reducing thermal exposure in the droplet. Mutukuri et al. employed electrostatic spray drying to manufacture inhalable dry powders of trastuzumab formulated with trehalose, phosphate buffer, and polysorbate 20 [24].
Since there are multiple processes/mechanisms to make inhalable solid particles, the most appropriate manufacturing process should be selected with the patient and product/process scalability in mind. Formulation selection and the resultant particle morphology from commercially-scalable equipment are likely the strongest driving factors for product performance. In
https://t.me/medicina_free
the current state, spray drying meets these requirements and will therefore be the focus of the remainder of this chapter.
3 FormulationofSpray-DriedInhaledM Abs
A challenge common to all dry powder manufacturing strategies is the structural denaturation of proteins during manufacturing and/or upon product storage. Many of the challenges associated with dry powder mAbs for pulmonary delivery also apply to spray-dried mAbs for other applications such as reconstitution and subsequent injection, so numerous studies on this topic are instructive and included herein. A recent review covers the role of stabilizing excipients in biomacromolecule dry powder formulations in great detail [25]. Excipients for dry powder formulation of biotherapeutics can be divided into two general categories: stabilizers and surface-active excipients. Both stabilizers and surface-active excipients have the added constraint that they must be acceptable for use in the sensitive respiratory tract. A summary of the current status of common excipients and their functions is provided in Table 2.
Table2 Common excipients investigated for dry powder antibody formulations
Excipient Suggestedfunctionindry
powdermAbfo rmulation
PrecedenceinFDA-approved pulmonaryproduct?
Trehalose Stabilizer No
Mannitol Stabilizer Yes
Lactose Stabilizer Yes
Glucose Stabilizer No
Sorbitol Stabilizer No
Cyclodextrins Stabilizer No
Rafinose Stabilizer No
L-leucine Surface active No
Tri-leucine Surface active No
Polysorbate 80 Surface active Yes
Glycine Stabilizer Yes
Sodium lauryl Sulfate
Surface active Yes
Cysteine Stabilizer No
https://t.me/medicina_free
Excipient Suggestedfunctionindry
powdermAbfo rmulation
PrecedenceinFDA-approved pulmonaryproduct?
Phenylalanine Stabilizer No
Arginine Stabilizer No
Polysorbate 20 Surface active No
3.1 StabilizingExcipients
As discussed in the process sections below, mAbs in dry powder inhaled formulations undergo various stresses depending on their manufacturing technique, including dehydration, shear from atomization, and air-liquid interfacial stress for spray drying [26]. Freezing stress is encountered additionally for spray-freeze drying. On the other hand, thin ilm freezing eliminates the risk of shear from atomization. In these cases, excipients help protect antibodies from these processing stresses.
3.1.1  StabilizingSugars
Literature studies of intravenous and nebulized pulmonary formulations of mAbs focus on dissolving the active in a buffer, typically with a sugar-based excipient and a surfactant to reduce solution-state aggregation. As with intravenous (IV) formulations, sugars and sugar alcohols most often serve as stabilizing excipients for dry powder formulations, where they help in maintaining the protein’s native conformation via hydrogen bonding/water replacement and reducing mobility in the solid [27].
Mannitol, lactose, sorbitol, trehalose, rafinose, glucose, and cyclodextrin are common sugar matrix excipients employed in clinical and preclinical trial formulations [25, 28–38]. Of these excipients, trehalose has emerged as the most prevalent stabilizer for dry powder inhalation delivery of biotherapeutics [39–42]. Trehalose is a non-reducing sugar (i.e., a sugar with no free ketone or aldehyde group) that is not subject to the Maillard reaction mechanism of degradation [43]. Trehalose also has a high glass transition temperature (~120 °C) under dry conditions, leading to good chemical and physical stability [25]. Materials with glass transition temperatures far above their storage temperatures will have low molecular mobility, effectively “locking in” the formulation’s molecular structure, and reducing changes over time.
Sane et al. compared the processes of lyophilization and spray drying using a model monoclonal antibody (rhuMAb) with or without sucrose. For spray-dried samples, increasing the molar ratio of sucrose:rhuMAb from 55:1 to 320:1 decreased the aggregation rate ivefold during storage at 30 °C [36].
https://t.me/medicina_free
Assuming a mass of 150 kDa, the 320:1 ratio would correspond to roughly 55% antibody in the dry powder by mass. A high active loading such as this could enable a wide range of dosing strengths, up to approximately 15–18 mg active in a DPI.
Andya et al. spray-dried rhuMAbE25, an anti-IgE antibody, in formulations composed of trehalose, lactose, or mannitol from sugar:rhuMAbE25 molar ratios of 100:1 to 900:1 [44]. These formulations were then assayed for aggregation following reconstitution by size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) and the ine particle fraction (FPF, fraction of particles with mass median aerodynamic diameters <6.4 μm) by using a four-stage inertial impactor. The powders were also stored at 5, 30, and 40 °C for 1 year. All trehalose:rhuMAbE25 molar ratios above 100:1 minimized aggregation (<1% aggregate content vs. 5% without sugar), but ratios above 200:1 decreased FPF from 30–35% to 10–15%. In contrast, all lactose:rhuMAbE25 molar ratios from 100:1 to 600:1 exhibited an FPF of ~30% and had aggregation <1%. However, storage of lactose particles for 9 months at 30 °C led to irreversible glycation through Maillard reactions that were not observed during storage at 5 °C. Mannitol formulations all had higher aggregate content (2–3%) and further increasing mannitol steadily decreased FPF. All formulations decreased aggregation rate constants following storage of powders for 1 year at 30 °C. The beneit of mannitol plateaued at sugar:Ab ratios >100:1, while increasing trehalose and lactose content beyond 100:1 continued to decrease the aggregation rate constant. This observation was corroborated by powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD). After 1 year at 30 °C, trehalose at 900:1 and lactose at 600:1 showed no signs of crystallinity. In contrast, the 500:1 mannitol formulation showed a clear crystalline ingerprint. Although the 200:1 and 100:1 formulations did not exhibit crystallinity by PXRD, the extent of crystallization may have been at levels below the detection limit of the assay. These results emphasize that there may be compromises implicit in simultaneously optimizing both stability and powder properties, especially depending on the identity and/or amounts of the excipient.
Schu le et al. evaluated solutions containing 0–80% mannitol for spray drying a model IgG antibody [45]. Higher mannitol content (50–80%) led to an increase in aggregates as measured by SEC and turbidity, while 20–30% mannitol formulations were identical to 100% IgG solution. They compared aggregation in solutions comprising 0%, 30%, and 70% mannitol before and after one week at 40 °C. The 0% and 30% solutions initially had ~0.5% aggregate content while the 70% formulation started at 3%, indicating higher mannitol concentrations destabilize protein structure upon formulation. After 1 week in solution, the 30% mannitol mixture had unchanged aggregate
https://t.me/medicina_free
content, while the 0% and 70% mixtures increased to 1.5% and 6%, respectively. After spray drying and powder dissolution, the powders contained 0.7–6.4% aggregates; lower mannitol content (20–40%) maximized stability during spray drying, while higher mannitol content promoted accelerated aggregation, echoing the results from the Andya et al. studies. FTIR analysis of the spray-dried powders showed a different amide I band ingerprint compared to the IgG feed solution. Interestingly, after reconstitution of the SDI powders, the solutions reverted to the original IR proile, suggesting reversible denaturation occurs during drying [45]. The reversibility and magnitude of denaturation during drying may vary according to the antibody structure and sequence. This could have important implications for clinical development as denaturation could disrupt antigen binding and lead to aggregation, which may lead to diminished eficacy and subsequent immunogenicity in vivo [7].
It is the authors’ opinion, based on available evidence, that to maximize the stabilizing impact of sugar, the protein and sugar molecules must be in intimate contact. Thus, manufacturing a single-phase amorphous dispersion of sugar and protein should be prioritized. Trehalose is the foremost example of a nonreducing sugar that is often physically stable in an amorphous dispersion with a protein. Studies have also shown mannitol to be a useful stabilizing excipient, though it is prone to crystallization during spray drying under many conditions and formulation compositions. An amorphous dispersion of mannitol and protein would be preferable to maximize molecular interaction, but challenging to manufacture.
3.1.2  StabilizingAminoAci ds
Amino acids have also been assessed as DPI mAb excipients, likely serving a variety of functions dependent on the side chain functionality. In collaboration with UCB Pharma, the Massant et al. spray-dried two model IgG antibodies formulated with combinations of sucrose, trehalose, and an amino acid (13 total screened) at varying concentrations [46]. They found that stability was almost entirely dictated by the sugar; increasing sucrose or trehalose from 5 to 75 mg/mL decreased weekly aggregation rates from ~2% to 0.1%. These results were corroborated by Sane et al., who found that sugars provided the greatest beneit to long-term stability and histidine only provided a minor protective effect during drying [36]. It is worthwhile to note that in both studies, only positively charged amino acid excipients provided stabilizing effects. The authors suggest that the charged guanidinium group of arginine can form strong hydrogen and π-bonds, while its aliphatic chain can favorably interact with hydrophobic surfaces. While histidine can also
https://t.me/medicina_free