Evidence mapPaperPMID 40935928Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2025

Insights from a Survey of Drug Formulation Experts: Challenges and Preferences in High-Concentration Subcutaneous Biologic Drug Development.

Mehul Desai, Amitava Kundu, Michael Hageman, Hao Lou, Srini Tenjarla, Changquan Calvin Sun, Feng Zhang, Omar Rahman

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. High-Concentration Antibody Formulation via Solvent-Based Dehydration.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mehul DesaiEnable Injections, Inc., 2863 East Sharon Rd, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45241, USA. mdesai@enableinjections.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6384-3046
Amitava KunduManufacturing Sciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, USA.
Michael HagemanUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Hao LouUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Srini TenjarlaChemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls and Formulation, Serina Therapeutics, Inc., Huntsville, Alabama, USA.
Changquan Calvin SunPurdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Feng ZhangUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Omar RahmanEnable Injections, Inc., 2863 East Sharon Rd, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45241, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biological ProductsDrug CompoundingDrug DevelopmentDrug Delivery SystemsDrug IndustryHumansInjections, SubcutaneousSurveys and QuestionnairesViscosityBiological Productsbiologicdrug formulationhigh-concentrationsubcutaneousviscosity

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.