Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 490–499 | Cite as

Subcutaneous Absorption of Monoclonal Antibodies: Role of Dose, Site of Injection, and Injection Volume on Rituximab Pharmacokinetics in Rats

  • Leonid KaganEmail author
  • Michael R. Turner
  • Sathy V. Balu-Iyer
  • Donald E. Mager
Research Paper

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To determine the effect of dose, the anatomical site of injection, and the injection volume on subcutaneous absorption of rituximab in rats and to explore absorption mechanisms using pharmacokinetic modeling.

Methods

Rituximab serum concentrations were measured following intravenous and subcutaneous administration at the back, abdomen, and foot of rats. Several pharmacokinetic models were developed that included linear and saturable absorption, and degradation and/or protective binding at the injection site.

Results

Rituximab exhibited linear kinetics following intravenous administration; however, bioavailability following subcutaneous injection was inversely related to the dose level. For the 1 mg/kg dose, bioavailability was approximately 70% at all tested injection sites, with faster absorption from the foot (Tmax = 12 h for foot vs. 4.6 days for back). Bioavailability for the 10 mg/kg dose was 44 and 31% for the abdomen and back sites and 18% for 40 mg/kg injected at the back. A pharmacokinetic model that included binding as part of the absorption mechanism successfully captured the nonlinearities in rituximab absorption.

Conclusion

The anatomical site of subcutaneous injection influences the rate of absorption and bioavailability of rituximab in rats. Saturable binding may be a major determinant of the nonlinear absorptive transport of monoclonal antibodies.

KEY WORDS

lymphatic absorption pharmacokinetic modeling saturable absorption therapeutic proteins 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS & DISCLOSURES

We thank Dr. John M. Harrold for his help in developing the MATLAB code for this project. Partial results of this study were presented at the 12th Buffalo Pharmaceutics Symposium in Buffalo, NY. This work was supported by the Center for Protein Therapeutics, University at Buffalo, SUNY.

Supplementary material

11095_2011_578_MOESM1_ESM.doc (60 kb)
ESM1 (DOC 60 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Roskos LK, Davis CG, Schwab GM. The clinical pharmacology of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Drug Develop Res. 2004;61:108–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin JH. Pharmacokinetics of biotech drugs: peptides, proteins and monoclonal antibodies. Curr Drug Metab. 2009;10:661–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lobo ED, Hansen RJ, Balthasar JP. Antibody pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. J Pharmaceut Sci. 2004;93:2645–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tabrizi MA, Tseng CM, Roskos LK. Elimination mechanisms of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Drug Discov Today. 2006;11:81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ternantand D, Paintaud G. Pharmacokinetics and concentration-effect relationships of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins. Expert Opin Biol Th. 2005;5:S37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dayde D, Ternant D, Ohresser M, Lerondel S, Pesnel S, Watier H, et al. Tumor burden influences exposure and response to rituximab: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling using a syngeneic bioluminescent murine model expressing human CD20. Blood. 2009;113:3765–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urva SR, Yang VC, Balthasar JP. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for T84.66: A monoclonal anti-CEA antibody. J Pharmaceut Sci. 2010;99:1582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tang L, Persky AM, Hochhaus G, Meibohm B. Pharmacokinetic aspects of biotechnology products. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93:2184–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Porter CJ, Charman SA. Lymphatic transport of proteins after subcutaneous administration. J Pharm Sci. 2000;89:297–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dirks NL, Meibohm B. Population pharmacokinetics of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49:633–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McLennan DN, Porter CJ, Edwards GA, Heatherington AC, Martin SW, Charman SA. The absorption of darbepoetin alfa occurs predominantly via the lymphatics following subcutaneous administration to sheep. Pharm Res. 2006;23:2060–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porter CJ, Edwards GA, Charman SA. Lymphatic transport of proteins after s.c. injection: implications of animal model selection. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;50:157–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charman SA, McLennan DN, Edwards GA, Porter CJ. Lymphatic absorption is a significant contributor to the subcutaneous bioavailability of insulin in a sheep model. Pharm Res. 2001;18:1620–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kota J, Machavaram KK, McLennan DN, Edwards GA, Porter CJ, Charman SA. Lymphatic absorption of subcutaneously administered proteins: influence of different injection sites on the absorption of darbepoetin alfa using a sheep model. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35:2211–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kagan L, Gershkovich P, Mendelman A, Amsili S, Ezov N, Hoffman A. The role of the lymphatic system in subcutaneous absorption of macromolecules in the rat model. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2007;67:759–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kojima M, Hosoda H, Date Y, Nakazato M, Matsuo H, Kangawa K. Ghrelin is a growth-hormone-releasing acylated peptide from stomach. Nature. 1999;402:656–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bocci V, Muscettola M, Grasso G, Magyar Z, Naldini A, Szabo G. The lymphatic route. 1) Albumin and hyaluronidase modify the normal distribution of interferon in lymph and plasma. Experientia. 1986;42:432–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beshyah SA, Anyaoku V, Niththyananthan R, Sharp P, Johnston DG. The effect of subcutaneous injection site on absorption of human growth hormone: abdomen versus thigh. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1991;35:409–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Macdougall IC, Jones JM, Robinson MI, Miles JB, Coles GA, Williams JD. Subcutaneous erythropoietin therapy: comparison of three different sites of injection. Contrib Nephrol. 1991;88:152–6. discussion 157–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ter Braak E, Woodworth J, Bianchi R, Cerimele B, Erkelens D, Thijssen J, et al. Injection site effects on the pharmacokinetics and glucodynamics of insulin lispro and regular insulin. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:1437–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oussoren C, Zuidema J, Crommelin DJA, Storm G. Lymphatic uptake and biodistribution of liposomes after subcutaneous injection I. Influence of the anatomical site of injection. J Liposome Res. 1997;7:85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee VH. Enzymatic barriers to peptide and protein absorption. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 1988;5:69–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parsons JA, Rafferty B, Stevenson RW, Zanelli JM. Evidence that protease inhibitors reduce the degradation of parathyroid hormone and calcitonin injected subcutaneously. Br J Pharmacol. 1979;66:25–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mager DE, Neuteboom B, Efthymiopoulos C, Munafo A, Jusko WJ. Receptor-mediated pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of interferon-beta1a in monkeys. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2003;306:262–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reff ME, Carner K, Chambers KS, Chinn PC, Leonard JE, Raab R, et al. Depletion of B cells in vivo by a chimeric mouse human monoclonal antibody to CD20. Blood. 1994;83:435–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plosker GL, Figgitt DP. Rituximab: a review of its use in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Drugs. 2003;63:803–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davis CB, Bugelski PJ. Subcutaneous bioavailability of a PRIMATIZED IgG1 anti-human CD4 monoclonal antibody is dose dependent in transgenic mice bearing human CD4. Drug Deliv. 1998;5:95–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beum PV, Kennedy AD, Taylor RP. Three new assays for rituximab based on its immunological activity or antigenic properties: analyses of sera and plasmas of RTX-treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and other B cell lymphomas. J Immunol Methods. 2004;289:97–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blasco H, Lalmanach G, Godat E, Maurel MC, Canepa S, Belghazi M, et al. Evaluation of a peptide ELISA for the detection of rituximab in serum. J Immunol Methods. 2007;325:127–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DeSilva B, Smith W, Weiner R, Kelley M, Smolec J, Lee B, et al. Recommendations for the bioanalytical method validation of ligand-binding assays to support pharmacokinetic assessments of macromolecules. Pharm Res. 2003;20:1885–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Findlay JW, Dillard RF. Appropriate calibration curve fitting in ligand binding assays. AAPS J. 2007;9:E260–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ober RJ, Martinez C, Vaccaro C, Zhou J, Ward ES. Visualizing the site and dynamics of IgG salvage by the MHC class I-related receptor, FcRn. J Immunol. 2004;172:2021–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garg A, Balthasar JP. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to predict IgG tissue kinetics in wild-type and FcRn-knockout mice. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007;34:687–709.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swartz MA. The physiology of the lymphatic system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;50:3–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McLennan DN, Porter CJH, Charman SA. Subcutaneous drug delivery and the role of the lymphatics. Drug Discov Today: Tech. 2005;2:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weinstein JN, Parker RJ, Keenan AM, Dower SK, Morse 3rd HC, Sieber SM. Monoclonal anitbodies in the lymphatics: toward the diagnosis and therapy of tumor metastases. Science. 1982;218:1334–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steller MA, Parker RJ, Covell DG, Holton 3rd OD, Keenan AM, Sieber SM, et al. Optimization of monoclonal antibody delivery via the lymphatics: the dose dependence. Cancer Res. 1986;46:1830–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Harrell MI, Iritani BM, Ruddell A. Lymph node mapping in the mouse. J Immunol Meth. 2008;332:170–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Raghavan M, Bjorkman PJ. Fc receptors and their interactions with immunoglobulins. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1996;12:181–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ghetie V, Hubbard JG, Kim JK, Tsen MF, Lee Y, Ward ES. Abnormally short serum half-lives of IgG in beta 2-microglobulin-deficient mice. Eur J Immunol. 1996;26:690–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Junghans RP, Anderson CL. The protection receptor for IgG catabolism is the beta2-microglobulin-containing neonatal intestinal transport receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93:5512–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wang W, Wang EQ, Balthasar JP. Monoclonal antibody pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;84:548–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dickinson BL, Badizadegan K, Wu Z, Ahouse JC, Zhu X, Simister NE, et al. Bidirectional FcRn-dependent IgG transport in a polarized human intestinal epithelial cell line. J Clin Invest. 1999;104:903–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Antohe F, Radulescu L, Gafencu A, Ghetie V, Simionescu M. Expression of functionally active FcRn and the differentiated bidirectional transport of IgG in human placental endothelial cells. Hum Immunol. 2001;62:93–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hansen RJ, Balthasar JP. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of the effects of intravenous immunoglobulin on the disposition of antiplatelet antibodies in a rat model of immune thrombocytopenia. J Pharm Sci. 2003;92:1206–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mager DE, Krzyzanski W. Quasi-equilibrium pharmacokinetic model for drugs exhibiting target-mediated drug disposition. Pharm Res. 2005;22:1589–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ober RJ, Radu CG, Ghetie V, Ward ES. Differences in promiscuity for antibody-FcRn interactions across species: implications for therapeutic antibodies. Int Immunol. 2001;13:1551–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McDonald TA, Zepeda ML, Tomlinson MJ, Bee WH, Ivens IA. Subcutaneous administration of biotherapeutics: current experience in animal models. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2010;12:461–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xu Z, Wang Q, Zhuang Y, Frederick B, Yan H, Bouman-Thio E, et al. Subcutaneous bioavailability of golimumab at 3 different injection sites in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50:276–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonid Kagan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael R. Turner
    • 2
  • Sathy V. Balu-Iyer
    • 2
  • Donald E. Mager
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations