Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29973504›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutics2018

Overview of Antibody Drug Delivery.

Sahar Awwad, Ukrit Angkawinitwong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Cytotoxicity ofEJNMMI radiopharmacy and chemistry · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. MPETDrug delivery · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sahar AwwadUCL School of Pharmacy, London WC1N 1AX, UK. s.awwad@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4430-2508
Ukrit AngkawinitwongUCL School of Pharmacy, London WC1N 1AX, UK. ukrit.angkawinitwong.11@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are one of the most important classes of therapeutic proteins, which are used to treat a wide number of diseases (e.g., oncology, inflammation and autoimmune diseases). Monoclonal antibody technologies are continuing to evolve to develop medicines with increasingly improved safety profiles, with the identification of new drug targets being one key barrier for new antibody development. There are many opportunities for developing antibody formulations for better patient compliance, cost savings and lifecycle management, e.g., subcutaneous formulations. However, mAb-based medicines also have limitations that impact their clinical use; the most prominent challenges are their short pharmacokinetic properties and stability issues during manufacturing, transport and storage that can lead to aggregation and protein denaturation. The development of long acting protein formulations must maintain protein stability and be able to deliver a large enough dose over a prolonged period. Many strategies are being pursued to improve the formulation and dosage forms of antibodies to improve efficacy and to increase the range of applications for the clinical use of mAbs.

Indexed as

antibodiesdrug deliverypharmacokineticsproteinstability

Identifiers

PMID29973504
PMCPMC6161251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.