4.8 Article

Overcoming anti-PEG antibody mediated accelerated blood clearance of PEGylated liposomes by pre-infusion with high molecular weight free PEG

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 311, 期 -, 页码 138-146

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.08.017

关键词

Polyethylene glycol antibodies; Anti-PEG antibodies; PEGylation; Polyethylene glycol; Anti-drug antibodies; Drug delivery; Accelerated blood clearance; Nanoparticles

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1650116]
  2. David and Lucile Packard Foundation [2013-39274]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01 HL141934, R35 GM119661]
  4. UNC Research Opportunities Initiative grant in Pharmacoengineering
  5. National Science Foundation [DMS-1462992, DMS-1412844, DMS-1517274, DMS-1664645]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antibodies that specifically bind polyethylene glycol (PEG), i.e. anti-PEG antibodies (APA), are associated with reduced efficacy and increased risk of serious adverse events for several PEGylated therapeutics. Here, we explored the concept of using free PEG molecules to saturate circulating APA. Surprisingly, we found that 40 kDa free PEG effectively restored the prolonged circulation of PEGylated liposomes in the presence of high titers of pre-existing APA for at least 48 h in mice. In contrast, lower molecular weight free PEG (<= 10 kDa) failed to restore circulation beyond a few hours. These in vivo results were consistent with estimates from a minimal physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. Importantly, the infusion of free PEG appeared to be safe in mice previously sensitized by injection of PEGylated liposomes, and free PEG did not elicit excess APA production even in mice with pre-existing adaptive immunity against PEG. Our results support further investigation of high molecular weight free PEG as a potential method to control and overcome high titers of APA, restoring the prolonged circulation of PEGylated liposomes and possibly other PEGylated therapeutics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据