Chapter 13: Formulation Development for Biologics Utilizing Lab Automation and In Vivo Performance Models

  • Michael SiedlerEmail author
  • Sabine Eichling
  • Martin Huelsmeyer
  • Jonas Angstenberger
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 35)


Formulation scientists are confronted with challenges arising from the increasing diversity of molecule formats and their functionality such as antibody-drug conjugates, fusion molecules, as well as increasing expectations by authorities for an in-depth product and process understanding (Quality by Design concept). However, the very same disruptive technological advancements that enable protein engineers to design and produce such novel molecule constructs can be utilized to improve formulation development. In particular, innovations in lab automation and system integration in conjunction with method miniaturization allow for generating more data more efficiently. Furthermore, software tools developed to cope with “big data” and data science enable automated data management and processing to master the ever-increasing amount of data. Finally, in order to allow for a science-based assessment of analytical results, adequate in vivo models are required to assess the respective biorelevance, like chemical modifications.


Quality by Design High-throughput laboratory Automated liquid formulation screening Microplates Antibody Miniaturized analytical methods Stability studies Data management Biorelevance In vivo performance models Protein metabolism 


  1. 1.
    Brinkmann U, Kontermann RE. The making of bispecific antibodies. MAbs. 2017;9(2):182–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spiess C, Zhai Q, Carter PJ. Alternative molecular formats and therapeutic applications for bispecific antibodies. Mol Immunol. 2015;67:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elgundi Z, Reslan M, Cruz E, Sifniotis V, Kayser V. The state-of-play and future of antibody therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2017;122:2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joerg S, Gupta K, Rodrigues M. Introduction into novel constructs. In: Warne N, Mahler HC, editors. Challenges in protein product development. AAPS advances in the pharmaceutical sciences series, vol. 38. Cham: Springer; 2018.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carter PJ, Lazar GA. Next generation antibody drugs: pursuit of the high-hanging fruit. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17:197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mathaes R, Koulov A, Joerg S, Mahler HC. Subcutaneous injection volume of biopharmaceuticals-pushing the boundaries. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105:2255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shpilberg O, Jackish C. Subcutaneous administration of rituximab (Mabthera) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) using hyaluronidase. Br J Cancer. 2013;109:1556–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline: Pharmaceutical Development Q8(R2); 2009. Available at:
  9. 9.
    International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline: Quality Risk Management Q9; 2005. Available at:
  10. 10.
    Grillo AO, Kane M, Penn N, Perkins M. Characterizing the formulation design space. Biopharm Int. 2010;23(3):30–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wurth C, Demeule B, Mahler HC, Adler M. Quality by design approaches to formulation robustness-an antibody case study. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105:1667–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maroju RK, Barash S, Brisbane CE. Evaluation of a biologic formulation using customized design of experiment and novel multidimensional robustness diagrams. J Pharm Sci. 2018;107:797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    CMCBiotech Working Group. A Mab: a case study in bioprocess development.
  14. 14.
    Sreedhara A, Lentz Y, Schoenhammer K, Stark C. Application of QbD principles to late-stage formulation development for biological liquid products. In: Jameel F, Hershenson S, Khan MA, Martin-Moe S, editors. Quality by design for biopharmaceutical drug product development. AAPS advances in the pharmaceutical sciences series 18. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 115–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ), Manual of Policies and Procedures, MAPP 5016.1; Applying ICH Q8 (R2), Q9, and Q10 Principles to Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Reviews.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alt N, Zhang TY, Motchnik P, Taticek R, Quarmby V, Schlothauer T, Beck H, Emrich T, Harris RJ. Determination of critical quality attributes for monoclonal antibodies using quality by design principles. Biologicals. 2016;44:291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siedler M, Kumar V, Chari R, Saluja S, Fraunhofer W. Molecular Design and Early Candidates Screening. In: Jameel F, Hershenson S, Kahn MA, Martin-Moe S, editors. Quality by design for biopharmaceutical development. AAPS advances in the pharmaceutical sciences series 18, New York: Springer; 2015. p. 61–86.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    He F, Razinkov VI, Middaugh CR, Becker GW. High-throughput biophysical approaches to therapeutic protein development. In: Narhi LO, editor. Biophysics for therapeutic protein development, biophysics, vol. 7. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    He F, Woods CE, Becker GW, Narhi LO, Razinkov VI. High-throughput assessment of thermal and colloidal stability parameters for monoclonal antibody formulations. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100:5126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Capelle MAH, Gurny R, Arvinte T. High throughput screening of protein formulation stability: practical considerations. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2007;65:131–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhao H, Graf O, Milovic N, Luan X, Bluemel M, Smolny M, Forrer K. Formulation development of antibodies using robotic system and high-throughput laboratory (HTL). J Pharm Sci. 2010;99:2279–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pollard J, McDonald P, Hesslein A. Lessons learned in building high-throughput process development capabilities. Eng Life Sci. 2016;16:93–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wise J, de Barron AG, Splendiani A, Balali-Mood B, Vasant D, Little E, Mellino G, Harrow I, Smith I, Taubert J, van Bochove K, Romacker M, Walgemoed P, Jimenez RC, Winnenburg R, Plasterer T, Gupta V, Hedley V. Implementation and relevance of FAIR data principles in biopharmaceutical R&D. Drug Discovery Today. 2019;24(4):933–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten JW, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolstencroft K, Zhao J, Mons B. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship, the FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship, scientific data volume 3, article number: 160018; 2016.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carpenter JF, et al. Overlooking subvisible particles in therapeutic protein products: gaps that may compromise product quality. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:1201–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenberg AS. Effects of protein aggregates: an immunologic perspective. AAPS J. 2006;8(3):E501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singh SK, et al. An industry perspective on the monitoring of subvisible particles as a quality attribute for protein therapeutics. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(8):3302–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Narhi LO, et al. Subvisible (2–100 μm) particle analysis during biotherapeutic drug product development: part 1, considerations and strategy. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104(6):1899–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Corvari V, et al. Subvisible (2–100 μm) particle analysis during biotherapeutic drug product development: part 2, experience with the application of subvisible particle analysis. Biologicals. 2015;43:457–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kiyoshi M, et al. Collaborative study for analysis of subvisible particles using flow imaging and light obscuration: experiences in Japanese biopharmaceutical consortium. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(2):832–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenberg AS, Verthelyi D, Cherney BW. Managing uncertainty: a perspective on risk pertaining to product quality attributes as they bear on immunogenicity of therapeutic proteins. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(10):3560–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ripple DC, Dimitrova MN. Protein particles: what we know and what we do not know. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(10):3568–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bee JS, Goletz TJ, Ragheb JA. The future of protein particle characterization and understanding its potential to diminish the immunogenicity of biopharmaceuticals: a shared perspective. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(10):3580–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johnson R, Jiskoot W. Models for evaluation of relative immunogenic potential of protein particles in biopharmaceutical protein formulations. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(10):3586–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Porter CJ, Charman SA. Lymphatic transport of proteins after subcutaneous administration. J Pharm Sci. 2000;89:297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    FDA. Guidance for industry – Bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products – general considerations. Fed. Regist. 2003.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ICH Expert Working Group. ICH guideline S6 (R1) – preclinical safety evaluation of biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals. Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP) 2011.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kawamata S, Ozawa J, Hashimoto M, Kurose T, Shinohara H. Structure of the rat subcutaneous connective tissue in relation to its sliding mechanism. Arch Histol Cytol. 2003;66:273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Richter WF, Bhansali SG, Morris ME. Mechanistic determinants of biotherapeutics absorption following SC administration. AAPS J. 2012;14:559–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zheng Y, et al. Minipig as a potential translatable model for monoclonal antibody pharmacokinetics after intravenous and subcutaneous administration. MAbs. 2012;4:243–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kagan L. Pharmacokinetic modeling of the subcutaneous absorption of therapeutic proteins. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42:1890–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Siedler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sabine Eichling
    • 1
  • Martin Huelsmeyer
    • 1
  • Jonas Angstenberger
    • 1
  1. 1.NBE High-Throughput and Advanced Formulation SciencesAbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co KGLudwigshafenGermany

Personalised recommendations