ArticlePsychopharmacology2026
Comparison between a chimeric anti-methamphetamine monoclonal antibody and humanized antibodies on pharmacological effects of methamphetamine.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleIndividuals with methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) can experience significant suffering due to the harmful effects of methamphetamine (METH) on physical and mental health. Although there are no approved medications for MUD, immunotherapies, including monoclonal antibodies (mAb), could serve as treatments for this debilitating condition. Our candidate anti-METH mAb called "devextinetug" features a mouse-derived variable binding region called "7F9" and a humanized constant domain. Our earlier work has shown that devextinetug is effective in altering METH's pharmacological effects. However, it is unknown whether the effectiveness of a chimeric mAb would be altered, or possibly improved, if the variable region were humanized. Moreover, no studies have determined whether onset and offset rates of binding to METH predicts anti-METH effectiveness of mAb candidates.
objectivesThe goals of the present study were to compare the anti-METH effectiveness of a chimeric mAb (called "IS12") that features our parental 7F9 variable region with a panel of mAbs that have fully humanized variable regions, and to determine whether onset and/or offset rates of binding to METH are associated with anti-METH effectiveness.
methodsWe humanized the variable region from ch-mAb7F9 with multiple sequences to produce 48 IgGs. The on and off rates to METH binding were determined for these IgGs and, based on their various onset/offset rats, we chose eight candidate IgGs for further testing (including our parental IS12). All eight IgGs were tested for ligand cross-reactivity and in a METH-elicited locomotor stimulation model in rats.
resultsCross-reactivity results revealed that IS12 exhibited the greatest affinity to METH, and it also produced the largest reduction in METH-elicited locomotor stimulation compared to the other seven candidates. Furthermore, onset and offset rates of binding to METH did not appear to be associated with reducing METH's in vivo pharmacological effects.
conclusionsThe 7F9 variable region is the most promising to treat MUD.
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.