ArticleMolecular pharmaceutics2025
Physicochemical Comparison of Kolliphor HS 15, ELP, and Conventional Surfactants for Antibody Stabilization in Biopharmaceutical Formulations.
Article in Molecular pharmaceutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stabilization of therapeutic protein formulations with nonionic surfactants such as Polysorbate 20 (PS20), Polysorbate 80 (PS80), or Poloxamer 188 (P188) is imperative to avoid critical loss of the active pharmaceutical ingredient by aggregation or adsorption onto different types of interfaces. In the present work, we have characterized the interfacial activity of the aforementioned surfactants, alone and in competition with antibodies, in comparison to two other excipients with approval for use in parenteral applications, Kolliphor HS 15 (HS15) and Kolliphor ELP (ELP). To this end, we applied a comprehensive suite of experimental techniques, including tensiometry, interfacial rheology, and quartz-crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCM-D). The obtained data shows important differences between the surfactants as well as a clear influence of the type of interface considered on the observed behavior. In order to link these physicochemical results to the performance of the chosen surfactants in the stabilization of antibodies, we performed another series of tests to quantify protein aggregation (i.e., the formation of (sub)visible particles in formulations under stress) as well as the release of oil from siliconized vials. In addition, the stability of the surfactants against enzymatic degradation was investigated. It is demonstrated that HS15 can compete with the widely used polysorbates in terms of interfacial activity and protein stabilization, while offering higher robustness against degradation by a lipase and an esterase. On the other hand, P188 shows poor interfacial activity but can still suppress the aggregation of at least some proteins, indicating that different mechanisms of stabilization are at play. Our findings and the broad spectrum of tests described in this work are instructive toward a better understanding of protein stabilization in distinct primary packaging systems through surfactants in aqueous formulations.
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.