Search

Purpose: Polysorbates (PS) contain polyoxyethylene (POE) sorbitan/isosorbide fatty acid esters that can partially hydrolyze over time in liquid drug products to generate degradants and a remaining intact PS fraction with a modified ester distribution. The degradants are composed of free fatty acids (FFAs) –-primarily lauric acid for PS20 and oleic acid for PS80–- and POE head groups. We previously demonstrated that under IV bag agitation conditions, mAb1 (a surface-active IgG4) aggregation increased with increasing amounts of degradants for PS20 but not for PS80. The purpose of this work is to understand the mechanism behind this observation. Methods: The surface tension of the remaining intact PS fraction without degradants was modeled and compared with that of enzymatically degraded PS solutions. Next, mAb1 aggregation in saline was measured in the presence of laurate and oleate salts during static storage. Lastly, colloidal and conformational stability of mAb1 in the presence of these salts was investigated through differential scanning fluorimetry and dynamic light scattering under IV bag solution conditions. Results: The surface tension was primarily influenced by FFAs rather than the modified ester distribution of the remaining intact PS. MAb1 bulk aggregation increased in the presence of laurate but not oleate salts. Both salt types increased the melting temperature of mAb1 indicating FFA-mAb1 interactions. However, only laurate salt increased mAb1 self-association potentially explaining the higher aggregation propensity in its presence. Conclusion: Our results help explain the observed differences between hydrolytically degraded PS20 and PS80 in affecting mAb1 aggregation under IV bag agitation conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Enzymatic polysorbate (PS) degradation and resulting free fatty acid (FFA) particles are detrimental to biopharmaceutical drug product (DP) stability. Different types and grades of polysorbate have varying propensity to form FFA particles. This work evaluates the homogenous all-oleate (AO) PS80 alongside heterogeneous PS20 and PS80 grades in terms its propensity to form FFA particles and other important attributes like interfacial protection and oxidation susceptibility. Methods: FFA particle formation rates were compared by degrading PS using non-immobilized hydrolases and fast degrading DP formulations. Interfacial protection of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) was assessed by agitation studies in saline using non-degraded and degraded PS. Several antioxidants were assessed for their ability to mitigate AO PS80 oxidation and subsequent mAb oxidation by a 40°C placebo stability study and a 2, 2′-Azobis (2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride stress model, respectively. Results: Visible and subvisible particles were significantly delayed in AO PS80 formulations compared with heterogeneous PS20 and PS80 formulations. Non-degraded AO PS80 was less protective of mAbs against the air-water interface compared with heterogeneous PS20. Interfacial protection by AO PS80 improved upon degradation owing to high surface activity of FFAs. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) completely mitigated AO PS80 oxidation unlike L-methionine and N-Acetyl-DL-Tryptophan. However, DTPA did not mitigate radical mediated mAb oxidation. Conclusion: AO PS80 is a promising alternative to reduce FFA particle formation compared with other PS types and grades. However, limitations observed here---such as lower protection against interfacial stresses and higher propensity for oxidation---need to be considered in assessing the risk/benefit ratio in using AO PS80. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biologic products encounter various types of interfacial stress during development, manufacturing, and clinical administration. When proteins come in contact with vapor–liquid, solid–liquid, and liquid–liquid surfaces, these interfaces can significantly impact the protein drug product quality attributes, including formation of visible particles, subvisible particles, or soluble aggregates, or changes in target protein concentration due to adsorption of the molecule to various interfaces. Protein aggregation at interfaces is often accompanied by changes in conformation, as proteins modify their higher order structure in response to interfacial stresses such as hydrophobicity, charge, and mechanical stress. Formation of aggregates may elicit immunogenicity concerns; therefore, it is important to minimize opportunities for aggregation by performing a systematic evaluation of interfacial stress throughout the product development cycle and to develop appropriate mitigation strategies. The purpose of this white paper is to provide an understanding of protein interfacial stability, explore methods to understand interfacial behavior of proteins, then describe current industry approaches to address interfacial stability concerns. Specifically, we will discuss interfacial stresses to which proteins are exposed from drug substance manufacture through clinical administration, as well as the analytical techniques used to evaluate the resulting impact on the stability of the protein. A high-level mechanistic understanding of the relationship between interfacial stress and aggregation will be introduced, as well as some novel techniques for measuring and better understanding the interfacial behavior of proteins. Finally, some best practices in the evaluation and minimization of interfacial stress will be recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]