ArticleThe AAPS journal2025
Insights from a Survey of Drug Formulation Experts: Challenges and Preferences in High-Concentration Subcutaneous Biologic Drug Development.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- High-Concentration Antibody Formulation via Solvent-Based Dehydration.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasing the concentration of intravenous (IV) biologic formulations to render them appropriate for subcutaneous (SC) delivery is challenging because it impacts many interrelated variables, including volume, viscosity, and stability. This study gathered drug formulation expert insights regarding these challenges as well as development approach preferences and perceptions concerning formulation volume. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry experts familiar with creating high-concentration (≥ 100 mg/mL) biologic drug formulations for SC delivery completed an online survey between 26 April and 7 May 2024. In total, there were 100 respondents included. When asked to rank seven approaches to transitioning a formulation from IV to SC administration, responses showed that increasing drug concentrations to reduce injection volume and/or changing the primary container were considered riskier, more time-consuming, and more costly than maintaining the concentration and using an on-body delivery system (OBDS). The greatest challenges mentioned were solubility issues (75%), viscosity-related challenges (72%), and aggregation issues (68%). Most respondents (69%) reported delays in clinical trials or product launches due to high-concentration SC formulation challenges. Of these, 33.3% experienced delays of 6-9 months (weighted mean: 11.3 months), while 4.3% indicated that trials or launches were canceled entirely due to formulation difficulties. In conclusion, making minimal drug formulation concentration changes to an IV biologic formulation may reduce the risk, time commitment, and cost associated with developing a SC biologic formulation. Further education is needed around the transition of traditional IV formulations to low-concentration, large-volume SC formulations utilizing delivery formats such as an SC infusion pump or OBDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40935928What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.