ArticleLupus2014
The importance of implementing proper selection of excipients in lupus clinical trials.
Article in Lupus, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protective roles of highly conserved motif 1 in tardigrade cytosolic-abundant heat soluble protein in extreme environments.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2024Article
- P140 Peptide Leads to Clearance of Autoreactive Lymphocytes and Normalizes Immune Response in Lupus-Prone Mice.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Lysosomes as a therapeutic target.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2019Review
- Protecting activity of desiccated enzymes.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2019Article
- Autophagy: controlling cell fate in rheumatic diseases.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2016Review
- Antigen-based immunotherapy for autoimmune disease: current status.ImmunoTargets and therapy · 2015Review
- Pharmacological regulators of autophagy and their link with modulators of lupus disease.British journal of pharmacology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peptide therapeutics hold attractive potential. However, the proper stabilization of such therapeutics remains a major challenge. Some peptides are marginally stable and are prone to degradation. Therefore, in addition to chemical modifications that can be introduced in their sequence, a wide variety of excipients are added in the formulation to stabilize them, as is also done routinely for protein therapeutics. These substances are supposed to suppress peptide/protein aggregation and surface adsorption, facilitate their dispersion and additionally to provide physiological osmolality. Particular attention has to be paid to the choice of such excipients. Here we highlight the observation that in certain clinical situations, an excipient that is not totally inert can play a highly damaging role and mask (or even reverse) the beneficial effect of a molecule in clinical evaluation. This is the case, for instance, of trehalose, a normally safe excipient, which notably has proven to act as an activator of autophagy. This excipient, although used efficiently in several therapeutics, adversely impacted a phase IIb clinical trial for human and murine lupus, a systemic autoimmune disease in which it has been recently discovered that at the base line, autophagy is already abnormally enhanced in lymphocytes. Thus, in this particular pathology, while the peptide that was tested was active in lupus patients when formulated in mannitol, it was not efficient when formulated in trehalose. This observation is important, since autophagy is enhanced in a variety of pathological situations, such as obesity, diabetes, certain neurological diseases, and cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.