ReviewmAbs
Non-human primates in the PKPD evaluation of biologics: Needs and options to reduce, refine, and replace. A BioSafe White Paper.
Review in mAbs. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polypharmacology of S-1117, an Fc-fused IgG-selective degrading enzyme, for chronic treatment of autoantibody-mediated diseases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Personalized and genetically engineered animal models for next-generation surgical implant validation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Integrative and Emerging Models in Antibody Research: A Comprehensive Review.Antibody therapeutics · 2025Review
- Review
- A holistic analysis of the intrinsic and delivery-mediated toxicity of siRNA therapeutics.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2023Review
- Predicting Human Bioavailability of Subcutaneously Administered Monoclonal Antibodies Using Non-human Primate Linear Clearance and Antibody Isoelectric Point.The AAPS journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) deliver great benefits to patients with chronic and/or severe diseases thanks to their strong specificity to the therapeutic target. As a result of this specificity, non-human primates (NHP) are often the only preclinical species in which therapeutic antibodies cross-react with the target. Here, we highlight the value and limitations that NHP studies bring to the design of safe and efficient early clinical trials. Indeed, data generated in NHPs are integrated with in vitro information to predict the concentration/effect relationship in human, and therefore the doses to be tested in first-in-human trials. The similarities and differences in the systems defining the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PKPD) of mAbs in NHP and human define the nature and the potential of the preclinical investigations performed in NHPs. Examples have been collated where the use of NHP was either pivotal to the design of the first-in-human trial or, inversely, led to the termination of a project prior to clinical development. The potential impact of immunogenicity on the results generated in NHPs is discussed. Strategies to optimize the use of NHPs for PKPD purposes include the addition of PD endpoints in safety assessment studies and the potential re-use of NHPs after non-terminal studies or cassette dosing several therapeutic agents of interest. Efforts are also made to reduce the use of NHPs in the industry through the use of in vitro systems, alternative in vivo models, and in silico approaches. In the case of prediction of ocular PK, the body of evidence gathered over the last two decades renders the use of NHPs obsolete. Expert perspectives, advantages, and pitfalls with these alternative approaches are shared in this review.
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.