| Literature DB >> 25256796 |
Elena Krayukhina1, Kouhei Tsumoto, Susumu Uchiyama, Kiichi Fukui.
Abstract
Currently, polymer-based prefillable syringes are being promoted to the pharmaceutical market because they provide an increased break resistance relative to traditionally used glass syringes. Despite this significant advantage, the possibility that barrel material can affect the oligomeric state of the protein drug exists. The present study was designed to compare the effect of different syringe materials and silicone oil lubrication on the protein aggregation. The stability of a recombinant fusion protein, abatacept (Orencia), and a fully human recombinant immunoglobulin G1, adalimumab (Humira), was assessed in silicone oil-free (SOF) and silicone oil-lubricated 1-mL glass syringes and polymer-based syringes in accelerated stress study. Samples were subjected to agitation stress, and soluble aggregate levels were evaluated by size-exclusion chromatography and verified with analytical ultracentrifugation. In accordance with current regulatory expectations, the amounts of subvisible particles resulting from agitation stress were estimated using resonant mass measurement and dynamic flow-imaging analyses. The amount of aggregated protein and particle counts were similar between unlubricated polymer-based and glass syringes. The most significant protein loss was observed for lubricated glass syringes. These results suggest that newly developed SOF polymer-based syringes are capable of providing biopharmaceuticals with enhanced physical stability upon shipping and handling.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC (high-performance/pressure liquid chromatography); UV/Vis spectroscopy; analytical ultracentrifugation; biopharmaceuticals characterization; imaging methods; physical stability; prefilled syringe; protein aggregation; silicone oil; subvisible particles
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25256796 PMCID: PMC4359023 DOI: 10.1002/jps.24184
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm Sci ISSN: 0022-3549 Impact factor: 3.534
Results of Percentage Transmission Measurements
| Abatacept | Adalimumab | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | PBS | Acetate Buffer | PBS | Acetate Buffer |
| Control | 99.77 ± 0.23 | 99.54 ± 0.23 | 98.63 ± 0.23 | 98.63 ± 0.23 |
| Polymer-SOF | 97.72 ± 0.45 | 98.40 ± 0.23 | 98.40 ± 0.23 | 98.40 ± 0.00 |
| Glass-SOF | 99.08 ± 0.23 | 97.72 ± 0.45 | 97.05 ± 0.00 | 97.72 ± 0.23 |
| Polymer-so+ | 72.44 ± 0.17 | 39.36 ± 0.18 | 95.94 ± 0.22 | 93.97 ± 0.22 |
| Glass-so+ | 39.45 ± 0.18 | 14.72 ± 0.10 | 68.08 ± 0.47 | 60.26 ± 0.14 |
Data are shown as the average of three measurements ± standard deviation.
Aggregates Quantification Results by SEC
| Soluble Species (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Insoluble Aggregates (%) | Monomer | Dimer | Higher-Order Aggregates |
| Control | <1 | 98.5 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | − |
| Polymer-SOF | 2 | 98.4 ± 0.0 | 1.6 ± 0.0 | − |
| Glass-SOF | 2 | 98.4 ± 0.1 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | − |
| Polymer-so+ | 5 | 97.5 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 |
| Glass-so+ | 7 | 91.4 ± 0.0 | 3.8 ± 0.0 | 4.8 ± 0.0 |
| Control | 4 | 93.2 ± 0.0 | 6.8 ± 0.0 | − |
| Polymer-SOF | 4 | 88.5 ± 0.0 | 11.5 ± 0.0 | − |
| Glass-SOF | 4 | 90.9 ± 0.0 | 9.1 ± 0.0 | − |
| Polymer-so+ | 14 | 89.3 ± 0.1 | 10.7 ± 0.1 | − |
| Glass-so+ | 19 | 92.6 ± 0.0 | 7.4 ± 0.1 | − |
| Control | <1 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | − | − |
| Polymer-SOF | <1 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | − | − |
| Glass-SOF | <1 | 99.9 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | − |
| Polymer-so+ | <1 | 99.9 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | − |
| Glass-so+ | 15 | 99.1 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 |
| Control | <1 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | − | − |
| Polymer-SOF | <1 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | − | − |
| Glass-SOF | <1 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | − | − |
| Polymer-so+ | <1 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | − | − |
| Glass-so+ | <1 | 99.3 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.1 |
Stressed samples were centrifuged for 30 min at 15,600g, and percent insoluble aggregation was determined from the difference of A280 before and after centrifugation, taken as a percentage of the A280 present before centrifugation.
Data are shown as the average of three measurements ± standard deviation.
Figure 1Aggregates quantification results by AUC-SV for the abatacept PBS formulation (a), abatacept acetate buffer formulation (b), adalimumab PBS formulation (c), and adalimumab acetate buffer formulation (d).
Figure 2Results of particle counts by RMM for the abatacept PBS formulation (a), abatacept acetate buffer formulation (b), adalimumab PBS formulation (c), and adalimumab acetate buffer formulation (d).
Figure 3Concentrations of protein particles determined by MFI for the abatacept PBS formulation (a), abatacept acetate buffer formulation (b), adalimumab PBS formulation (c), and adalimumab acetate buffer formulation (d).
Figure 4Representative FlowCAM images of protein particles obtained for the abatacept PBS formulation.