ArticlemAbs
MAbDelivery: Administration routes for antibody therapy Third LabEx MAbImprove industrial workshop, July 2, 2015 Tours, France.
Article in mAbs. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review on the Stability Challenges of Advanced Biologic Therapeutics.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Alternative Routes of Administration for Therapeutic Antibodies-State of the Art.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Inhalation monoclonal antibody therapy: a new way to treat and manage respiratory infections.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The annual "LabEx MAbImprove Industrial Workshops" are primarily intended to provide a comprehensive view about topics of interest for the pharmaceutical industry to scientists involved in research on therapeutic antibodies. The third workshop in this series, held July 2, 2015 in Tours, was dedicated to the optimization of delivery, namely all processes leading monoclonal antibodies to reach their target site. The commonly used intravenous (IV) route, although advantageous in terms of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, presents some disadvantages in terms of patients' convenience, therapeutic target access or treatment cost. Such problems led pharmaceutical companies to consider more straightforward and patient-friendly administration routes, bringing the need for specific formulations adapted to the specific inherent physicochemical challenges. In this context, the workshop provided an overview of these advances and opened discussion on new administration routes and formulation development. In the first session, the opportunities and challenges of 3 main routes of administration (IV, subcutaneous (SC), and pulmonary) were discussed, integrating protein stability issues. The next session was dedicated to medical devices intended for SC and pulmonary administration. The last session focused on specific formulations for monoclonal antibodies, particularly to successfully protect antibodies upon aerosolization, to develop highly concentrated formulations for SC administration, and to use formulation as a mean to overcome the barriers to oral protein delivery. As in the previous editions, this workshop gathered people from the academic and industrial spheres and allowed rich debates and discussions.
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.