Nomenclature of humanized mAbs: Early concepts, current challenges and future perspectives

Nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies traditionally followed a strict scheme indicating target and species information. Because of the rapid advances in this field, emphasized by approval of four humanized and six human antibodies in 2017, the International Nonproprietary Name of new antibodies was updated profoundly by removing the species substem completely. In this review we give an overview about what developments led to the preference of the scientific community towards human-like antibodies. We summarize the major updates in naming schemes that tried to classify antibodies according to their humanization technique or to the final primary sequence and how this led to the erroneous perception to indicate expected immunogenicity. Following the new 2017 nomenclature update, there will not be any information available about the species origin in the names of new antibodies, which emphasizes the need for providing additional supplemental information to the scientific community and develop tools to accurately estimate and control the safety of new monoclonal antibody molecules.

Changes to International Nonproprietary Names for antibody therapeutics 2017 and beyond: of mice, men and more

Active pharmaceutical substances require an International Nonproprietary Name (INN) assigned by the World Health Organization (WHO) to obtain market authorization as a medicinal product. INNs are selected to represent a unique, generic name for a drug enabling unambiguous identification by stakeholders worldwide. INNs may be requested after initiating clinical development of an investigational drug. Pharmaceutical classes are indicated by a common stem or suffix. Currently, INNs for monoclonal antibody-based drugs are recognized by the suffix, -mab, preceded by a source infix such as -xi- (chimeric), -zu- (humanized) or -u- (human) designating the species from which the antibody was derived. However, many technological advances have made it increasingly difficult to accurately capture an antibody's source in its name. In 2014, the WHO and the United States Adopted Names (USAN) Council approached this challenge by implementing changes to antibody source infix definitions. Unfortunately, gaps and ambiguities in the definitions and procedures resulted in inconsistent source category assignments and widespread confusion. The Antibody Society, extensively supported by academic and industry scientists, voiced concerns leading to constructive dialog during scheduled consultations with WHO and USAN Council representatives. In June 2017, the WHO announced that use of the source infix will be discontinued for new antibody INNs effective immediately. We fully support this change as it better aligns antibody INNs with current and foreseeable future innovations in antibody therapeutics. Here we review the changes implemented. Additionally, we analyzed antibody INNs recently assigned under the previous 2014 definitions and provide recommendations for further alignment.

Photoprotection: part II. Sunscreen: development, efficacy, and controversies

In addition to the naturally occurring, physical, and systemic photoprotective agents reviewed in part I, topical ultraviolet radiation filters are an important cornerstone of photoprotection. Sunscreen development, efficacy, testing, and controversies are reviewed in part II of this continuing medical education article.