CNS Drugs

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 205–214 | Cite as

PEGylation of Interferon-β-1a

A Promising Strategy in Multiple Sclerosis
  • Bernd C. KieseierEmail author
  • Peter A. Calabresi
Review Article


Achieving optimal patient benefit from biological therapies can be hindered by drug instability, rapid clearance requiring frequent dosing or potential immune reactions. One strategy for addressing these challenges is drug modification through PEGylation, a well established process by which one or more molecules of polyethylene glycol (PEG) are covalently attached to a biological or small-molecule drug, effectively transforming it into a therapy with improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Numerous PEGylated therapeutics are currently available, all of which have at least comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability to their unmodified forms. A PEGylated form of interferon-β-1a (PEG-IFNβ-1a) is being developed to address an unmet medical need for safer, more effective and more convenient therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS). Phase I study data suggest that PEG-IFNβ-1a should provide patients with a first-line therapy with a more convenient dosing regimen while maintaining the established efficacy, safety and tolerability of presently available IFNβ-1a. The ongoing global ADVANCE phase III study will determine the clinical efficacy of PEG-IFNβ-1a in patients with relapsing MS.


Multiple Sclerosis Retinal Nerve Fibre Layer Neopterin Fingolimod Pegfilgrastim 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Medical writing assistance was provided by Christopher Barnes and editorial support was provided by Joshua Safran, both of Infusion Communications. Their work was funded by Biogen Idec Inc. Dr Kieseier has received honoraria for lecturing, travel expenses for attending meetings and financial support for research from Baxter, Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, Medac, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Talecris and Teva Neuroscience. Dr Kieseier is a member of an international advisory board for the ADVANCE study, a clinical study investigating PEG-IFNβ in patients with relapsing forms of MS. Dr Calabresi has received personal compensation for consulting and serving on scientific advisory boards from Biogen Idec, Teva Neuroscience, Genzyme, Vaccinex and Novartis and has received research funding from Biogen Idec, Teva, EMD Serono, Abbott, Vertex, Genentech and Bayer.


  1. 1.
    IFNB MSSG. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: 1. Clinical results of a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1993; 43(4): 655–66Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Cohen JA, et al. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1995; 45(7): 1268–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobs LD, Cookfair DL, Rudick RA, et al. Interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Ann Neurol 1996; 39(3): 285–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon alpha-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1998; 352(9139): 1498–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mohr DC, Boudewyn AC, Likosky W, et al. Injectable medication for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: the influence of self-efficacy expectations and injection anxiety on adherence and ability to self-inject. Ann Behav Med 2001; 23(2): 125–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lugaresi A. Addressing the need for increased adherence to multiple sclerosis therapy: can delivery technology enhance patient motivation. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2009; 6(9): 995–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hohlfeld R, Barkhof F, Polman C. Future clinical challenges in multiple sclerosis: relevance to sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator therapy. Neurology 2011; 76 (8 Suppl. 3): S28–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yeh EA, Weinstock-Guttman B. Fingolimod: an oral disease-modifying therapy for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Adv Ther 2011; 28(4): 270–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jain A, Jain SK. PEGylation: an approach for drug delivery. A review. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 2008; 25(5): 403–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bailon P, Won CY. PEG-modified biopharmaceuticals. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2009; 6(1): 1–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang JS, Deluca PP, Lee KC. Emerging PEGylated drugs. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2009; 14(2): 363–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasut G, Veronese FM. PEG conjugates in clinical development or use as anticancer agents: an overview. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2009; 61(13): 1177–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jevsevar S, Kunstelj M, Porekar VG. PEGylation of therapeutic proteins. Biotechnol J 2010; 5(1): 113–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris JM, Martin NE, Modi M. Pegylation: a novel process for modifying pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 2001; 40(7): 539–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grace MJ, Lee S, Bradshaw S, et al. Site of pegylation and polyethylene glycol molecule size attenuate interferon-alpha antiviral and antiproliferative activities through the JAK/STAT signaling pathway. J Biol Chem 2005; 280(8): 6327–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee H, Park TG. Preparation and characterization of mono-PEGylated epidermal growth factor: evaluation of in vitro biologic activity. Pharm Res 2002; 19(6): 845–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearce Jr KH, Cunningham BC, Fuh G, et al. Growth hormone binding affinity for its receptor surpasses the requirements for cellular activity. Biochemistry 1999; 38(1): 81–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pasut G, Veronese FM. PEGylation for improving the effectiveness of therapeutic biomolecules. Drugs Today (Barc) 2009; 45(9): 687–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaehler KC, Sondak VK, Schadendorf D, et al. Pegylated interferons: prospects for the use in the adjuvant and palliative therapy of metastatic melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(1): 41–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Auwera P, Platzer E, Xu ZX, et al. Pharmaco-dynamics and pharmacokinetics of single doses of subcutaneous pegylated human G-CSF mutant (Ro 25–8315) in healthy volunteers: comparison with single and multiple daily doses of filgrastim. Am J Hematol 2001; 66(4): 245–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gaberc-Porekar V, Zore I, Podobnik B, et al. Obstacles and pitfalls in the PEGylation of therapeutic proteins. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2008; 11(2): 242–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patel VK, Ghosh S. Certolizumab pegol in Crohn’s disease. Drugs Today (Barc) 2008; 44(11): 837–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenberg YJ, Saxena A, Sun W, et al. Demonstration of in vivo stability and lack of immunogenicity of a polyethyleneglycol-conjugated recombinant CHO-derived butyrylcholinesterase bioscavenger using a homologous macaque model. Chem Biol Interact 2010; 187(1–3): 279–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Croyle MA, Le HT, Linse KD, et al. PEGylated helper-dependent adenoviral vectors: highly efficient vectors with an enhanced safety profile. Gene Ther 2005; 12(7): 579–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hofherr SE, Mok H, Gushiken FC, et al. Polyethylene glycol modification of adenovirus reduces platelet activation, endothelial cell activation, and thrombocytopenia. Hum Gene Ther 2007; 18(9): 837–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reddy KR, Wright TL, Pockros PJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of pegylated (40-kd) interferon alpha-2a compared with interferon alpha-2a in noncirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2001; 33(2): 433–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(13): 975–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thomas T, Foster G. Nanomedicines in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: focus on pegylated interferon alpha-2a. Int J Nanomedicine 2007; 2(1): 19–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weycker D, Malin J, Kim J, et al. Risk of hospitalization for neutropenic complications of chemotherapy in patients with primary solid tumors receiving pegfilgrastim or filgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Ther 2009; 31(5): 1069–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Von Minckwitz G, Schwenkglenks M, Skacel T, et al. Febrile neutropenia and related complications in breast cancer patients receiving pegfilgrastim primary prophylaxis versus current practice neutropenia management: results from an integrated analysis. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45(4): 608–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Almenar D, Mayans J, Juan O, et al. Pegfilgrastim and daily granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: patterns of use and neutropenia-related outcomes in cancer patients in Spain. Results of the LEARN study. Eur J Cancer Care 2009; 18(3): 280–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sierra J, Szer J, Kassis J, et al. A single dose of pegfilgrastim compared with daily filgrastim for supporting neutrophil recovery in patients treated for low-to-intermediate risk acute myeloid leukemia: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial. BMC Cancer 2008; 8: 195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ballestrero A, Boy D, Gonella R, et al. Pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim after autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in patients with solid tumours and lymphomas. Ann Hematol 2008; 87(1): 49–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pinto L, Liu Z, Doan Q, et al. Comparison of pegfilgrastim with filgrastim on febrile neutropenia, grade IV neutropenia and bone pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Curr Med Res Opin 2007; 23(9): 2283–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lane SW, Crawford J, Kenealy M, et al. Safety and efficacy of pegfilgrastim compared to granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) supporting a dose-intensive, rapidly cycling anti-metabolite containing chemotherapy regimen (Hyper-CVAD) for lymphoid malignancy. Leuk Lymphoma 2006; 47(9): 1813–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu Z, Doan QV, Malin J, et al. The economic value of primary prophylaxis using pegfilgrastim compared with filgrastim in patients with breast cancer in the UK. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2009; 7(3): 193–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Danova M, Chiroli S, Rosti G, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus six days of filgrastim for preventing febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients. Tumori 2009; 95(2): 219–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lyman GH, Lalla A, Barron RL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus filgrastim primary prophylaxis in women with early-stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy in the United States. Clin Ther 2009; 31(5): 1092–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tan Sean P, Chouaid C, Hettler D, et al. Economic implications of using pegfilgrastim rather than conventional G-CSF to prevent neutropenia during small-cell lung cancer chemotherapy. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25(6): 1455–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lyman G, Lalla A, Barron R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim versus 6-day filgrastim primary prophylaxis in patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving CHOP-21 in United States. Curr Med Res Opin 2009; 25(2): 401–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Molineux G. Pegfilgrastim: using pegylation technology to improve neutropenia support in cancer patients. Anti-cancer Drugs 2003; 14(4): 259–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grace MJ, Cutler DL, Bordens RW. Pegylated IFNs for chronic hepatitis C: and update. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2005; 2(2): 219–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Patel K, McHutchison J. Peginterferon alpha-2b: a new approach to improving response in hepatitis C patients. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2001; 2(8): 1307–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rasenack J, Madwar MA, Peters T, et al. Interferon therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C and schistosomiasis. J Hepatol 2000; 32(1): 172–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zeuzem S, Feinman SV, Rasenack J, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C. N Engl J Med 2000; 343(23): 1666–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pockros PJ, Carithers R, Desmond P, et al. Efficacy and safety of two-dose regimens of peginterferon alpha-2a in chronic hepatitis C. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(7): 1298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xu ZX, Hoffman J, Patel I, et al. Single-dose safety/ tolerability and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) following administration of ascending subcutaneous doses of pegylated-interferon (PEG-IFN) and interferon a-2a (IFN a-2a) to healthy subjects [abstract no. 2157]. Hepa-tology 1998; 28 Suppl. : 702AGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lindsay K, Trepo C, Heintges T, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing pegylated interferon alfa-2b to interferon alfa-2b as initial treatment for chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2001; 34(2): 395–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zeuzem S, Hultcrantz R, Bourliere M, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for treatment of chronic hepatitis C in previously untreated patients with HCV genotypes 2 or 3. J Hepatol 2004; 40(6): 993–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomized trial. Lancet 2001; 358(9286): 958–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Glue P, Fang JW, Rouzier-Panis R, et al. Pegylated interferon-α2b: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and preliminary efficacy data. Hepatitis C Intervention Therapy Group. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 68(5): 556–67Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Foster GR. Pegylated interferons for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: pharmacological and clinical differences between peginterferon-alpha-2a and peginterferon-alpha-2b. Drugs 2010; 70(2): 147–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Levin NW, Fishbane S, Cañedo FV, et al. Intravenous methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta for haemoglobin control in patients with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis: a randomized non-inferiority trial (MAXIMA). Lancet 2007; 370(9596): 1415–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Macdougal IC. Novel erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a new era in anemia management. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3(1): 200–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Palumbo E. PEG-interferon in acute and chronic hepatitis C: a review. Am J Ther 2009; 16(6): 573–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yatuv R, Robinson M, Dayan I, et al. Enhancement of the efficacy of therapeutic proteins by formulation with PE-Gylated liposomes: a case of FVIII, FVIIa and G-CSF. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2010; 7(2): 187–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Holmes FA, Jones SE, O’Shaughnessy J, et al. Comparable efficacy and safety profiles of once-per-cycle pegfilgrastim and daily injection filgrastim in chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: a multicenter dose-finding study in women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2002; 13(6): 903–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Johnston E, Crawford J, Blackwell S, et al. Randomized, dose-escalation study of SD/01 compared with daily filgrastim in patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(13): 2522–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ryan SM, Mantovani G, Wang X, et al. Advances in PE-Gylation of important biotech molecules: delivery aspects. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2008; 5(4): 371–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Soloman R, Gabizon AA. Clinical pharmacology of liposomal anthracyclines: focus on pegylated liposomal doxo-rubicin. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 2008; 8(1): 21–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Holloway RW, Grendys EC, Lefebvre P, et al. Tolerability, efficacy, and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in combination with carboplatin versus gemcitabine-carboplatin for the treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a systematic review. Oncologist 2010; 15(10): 1073–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Grenader T, Goldberg A, Hadas-Halperin I, et al. Long-term response to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas. Anticancer Drugs 2009; 20(1): 15–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Christodoulou C, Kostopoulos I, Kalofonos HP. Trastuzumab combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer: phase II study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) with biomarker evaluation. Oncology 2009; 76(4): 275–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Xu L, Anchordoquy T. Drug delivery trends in clinical trials and translational medicine: challenges and opportunities in the delivery of nucleic acid-based therapeutics. J Pharm Sci 2011; 100(1): 38–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gragoudas ES, Adamis AP, Cunningham Jr ET, et al. Pegaptanib for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(27): 2805–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Marcus DM, VEGF Inhibition Study in Ocular Neovascularization Clinical Trial Group. Four-year safety of pegaptanib sodium in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD): results of the V.I.S.I.O.N. trial. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: E-abstract 5069Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Baker DP, Pepinsky RB, Brickelmaier M, et al. PEGylated interferon beta-1a: meeting an unmet medical need in the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Interferon Cytokine Res 2010; 30(10): 777–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Baker DP, Lin EY, Lin KC, et al. N-terminally PEGylated human interferon-beta-1a with improved pharmacokinetic properties and in vivo efficacy in melanoma angiogenesis model. Bioconjug Chem 2006; 17(1): 179–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Runkel LA, deDios C, Karpusas M, et al. Systematic mutational mapping of sites of human interferon-β-1a that are important for receptor binding and functional activity. Biochemistry 2000; 39(10): 2538–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hu X, Miller L, Richman S, et al. A novel PEGylated interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: safety, pharmacology, and biology. J Clin Pharm. Epub 2011 Jun 16Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124 (Pt 5): 962–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Neurology, Medical FacultyHeinrich-Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyJohns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations