ReviewClinical and translational science2022
Changing the drug development and therapeutic paradigm with biologic drug combinations and bispecifics: How to choose between these two approaches?
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changing the drug development and therapeutic paradigm with biologic drug combinations and bispecifics: How to choose between these two approaches?Clinical and translational science · 2022Review
- PD-1/LAG-3 bispecific antibody potentiates T cell activation and increases antitumor efficacy.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biologics are increasingly being co-developed in combination or as novel constructs like bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) with the goal of targeting multiple, non-redundant mechanisms of action. Rational design of combinations and dual-targeting approaches that consider disease complexities have the potential to improve efficacy and safety, to increase duration of clinical benefit, and to minimize clinical resistance mechanisms. Here we summarize examples of BsAbs and biologic combinations that have been approved by health authorities and present drug development considerations when deciding between these two strategies. These include an understanding of target biology, nonclinical safety risks, dose optimization strategies, the regulatory framework, pharmacokinetic, immunogenicity, and bioanalytical assay considerations. The disease biology, target dynamics, and pharmacology objectives were identified as important factors in early drug development to decide between a BsAb versus a combination. Nonclinical safety assessment and dose optimization strategies can also pose challenges for BsAb versus combinations. High unmet medical needs and lack of treatment options are often the common denominators for deciding to develop a BsAb or a combination. Future development of biologic triple combinations and BsAbs combinations with other biologics will further increase drug development complexities and hold promise for more effective treatment options for patients.
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.