Modular and tunable alternative surfactants for biopharmaceuticals provide insights into Surfactant's Structure-Function relationship

Surface-induced aggregation of protein therapeutics is opposed by employing surfactants, which are ubiquitously used in drug product development, with polysorbates being the gold standard. Since poloxamer 188 is currently the only generally accepted polysorbate alternative, but cannot be ubiquitously applied, there is a strong need to develop surfactant alternatives for protein biologics that would complement and possibly overcome known drawbacks of existing surfactants. Yet, a severe lack of structure-function relationship knowledge complicates the development of new surfactants. Herein, we perform a systematic analysis of the structure-function relationship of three classes of novel alternative surfactants. Firstly, the mode of action is thoroughly characterized through tensiometry, calorimetry and MD simulations. Secondly, the safety profiles are evaluated through cell-based in vitro assays. Ultimately, we could conclude that the alternative surfactants investigated possess a mode of action and safety profile comparable to polysorbates. Moreover, the biophysical patterns elucidated here can be exploited to precisely tune the features of future surfactant designs.

Not the Usual Suspects: Alternative Surfactants for Biopharmaceuticals

Therapeutically relevant proteins naturally adsorb to interfaces, causing aggregation which in turn potentially leads to numerous adverse consequences such as loss of activity or unwanted immunogenic reactions. Surfactants are ubiquitously used in biotherapeutics drug development to oppose interfacial stress, yet, the choice of the surfactant is extremely limited: to date, only polysorbates (PS20/80) and poloxamer 188 are used in commercial products. However, both surfactant families suffer from severe degradation and impurities of the raw material, which frequently increases the risk of particle generation, chemical protein degradation, and potential adverse immune reactions. Herein, we assessed a total of 40 suitable alternative surfactant candidates and subsequently performed a selection through a three-gate screening process employing four protein modalities encompassing six different formulations. The screening is based on short-term agitation-induced aggregation studies coupled to particle analysis and surface tension characterization, followed by long-term quiescence stability studies connected to protein purity measurements and particle analysis. The study concludes by assessing the surfactant's chemical and enzymatic degradation propensity. The candidates emerging from the screening are de novo α-tocopherol-derivatives named VEDG-2.2 and VEDS, produced ad hoc for this study. They display protein stabilization potential comparable or better than polysorbates together with an increased resistance to chemical and enzymatic degradation, thus representing valuable alternative surfactants for biotherapeutics.

End-to-End Approach to Surfactant Selection, Risk Mitigation, and Control Strategies for Protein-Based Therapeutics

A survey performed by the AAPS Drug Product Handling community revealed a general, mostly consensus, approach to the strategy for the selection of surfactant type and level for biopharmaceutical products. Discussing and building on the survey results, this article describes the common approach for surfactant selection and control strategy for protein-based therapeutics and focuses on key studies, common issues, mitigations, and rationale. Where relevant, each section is prefaced by survey responses from the 22 anonymized respondents. The article format consists of an overview of surfactant stabilization, followed by a strategy for the selection of surfactant level, and then discussions regarding risk identification, mitigation, and control strategy. Since surfactants that are commonly used in biologic formulations are known to undergo various forms of degradation, an effective control strategy for the chosen surfactant focuses on understanding and controlling the design space of the surfactant material attributes to ensure that the desired material quality is used consistently in DS/DP manufacturing. The material attributes of a surfactant added in the final DP formulation can influence DP performance (e.g., protein stability). Mitigation strategies are described that encompass risks from host cell proteins (HCP), DS/DP manufacturing processes, long-term storage, as well as during in-use conditions.