journal article Open Access Sep 11, 2025

Insights from a Survey of Drug Formulation Experts: Challenges and Preferences in High-Concentration Subcutaneous Biologic Drug Development

View at Publisher Save 10.1208/s12248-025-01132-8
Abstract
Abstract
Increasing the concentration of intravenous (IV) biologic formulations to render them appropriate for subcutaneous (SC) delivery is challenging because it impacts many interrelated variables, including volume, viscosity, and stability. This study gathered drug formulation expert insights regarding these challenges as well as development approach preferences and perceptions concerning formulation volume. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry experts familiar with creating high-concentration (≥ 100 mg/mL) biologic drug formulations for SC delivery completed an online survey between 26 April and 7 May 2024. In total, there were 100 respondents included. When asked to rank seven approaches to transitioning a formulation from IV to SC administration, responses showed that increasing drug concentrations to reduce injection volume and/or changing the primary container were considered riskier, more time-consuming, and more costly than maintaining the concentration and using an on-body delivery system (OBDS). The greatest challenges mentioned were solubility issues (75%), viscosity-related challenges (72%), and aggregation issues (68%). Most respondents (69%) reported delays in clinical trials or product launches due to high-concentration SC formulation challenges. Of these, 33.3% experienced delays of 6–9 months (weighted mean: 11.3 months), while 4.3% indicated that trials or launches were canceled entirely due to formulation difficulties. In conclusion, making minimal drug formulation concentration changes to an IV biologic formulation may reduce the risk, time commitment, and cost associated with developing a SC biologic formulation. Further education is needed around the transition of traditional IV formulations to low-concentration, large-volume SC formulations utilizing delivery formats such as an SC infusion pump or OBDS.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
26
[1]
Viola M, Sequeira J, Seiça R, et al. Subcutaneous delivery of monoclonal antibodies: how do we get there? J Control Release. 2018;286:301–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.08.001. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.08.001
[2]
Overton PM, Shalet N, Somers F, Allen JA. Patient Preferences for Subcutaneous versus Intravenous Administration of Treatment for Chronic Immune System Disorders: A Systematic Review. Patient Prefer Adherence 2021;15:811–834. (In eng). https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.S303279. 10.2147/ppa.s303279
[3]
Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Fotheringham I, Mittal L, Sillah A, Pathak S. Differences between intravenous and subcutaneous modes of administration in oncology from the patient, healthcare provider, and healthcare system perspectives: a systematic review. Adv Ther. 2024;41(12):4396–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9. (In eng). 10.1007/s12325-024-02985-9
[4]
Richter WF, Bhansali SG, Morris ME. Mechanistic determinants of biotherapeutics absorption following SC administration. AAPS J. 2012;14(3):559–70. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-012-9367-0. (In eng). 10.1208/s12248-012-9367-0
[5]
Bittner B, Richter W, Schmidt J. Subcutaneous administration of biotherapeutics: an overview of current challenges and opportunities. BioDrugs. 2018;32(5):425–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-018-0295-0. 10.1007/s40259-018-0295-0
[6]
Davis JD, Bravo Padros M, Conrado DJ, et al. Subcutaneous administration of monoclonal antibodies: pharmacology, delivery, immunogenicity, and learnings from applications to clinical development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2024;115(3):422–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3150. 10.1002/cpt.3150
[7]
Desai M, Kundu A, Hageman M, Lou H, Boisvert D. Monoclonal antibody and protein therapeutic formulations for subcutaneous delivery: high-concentration, low-volume vs. low-concentration, high-volume. MAbs. 2023;15(1):2285277. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2023.2285277. (In eng). 10.1080/19420862.2023.2285277
[8]
Mathaes R, Koulov A, Joerg S, Mahler H-C. Subcutaneous injection volume of biopharmaceuticals–pushing the boundaries. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105(8):P2255–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2016.05.029. 10.1016/j.xphs.2016.05.029
[9]
Green P, Schneider A, Lange J. Navigating large-volume subcutaneous injections of biopharmaceuticals: a systematic review of clinical pipelines and approved products. MAbs. 2024;16(1):2402713. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420862.2024.2402713. (In eng). 10.1080/19420862.2024.2402713
[10]
Badkar AV, Gandhi RB, Davis SP, Labarre MJ. Subcutaneous delivery of high-dose/volume biologics: current status and prospect for future advancements. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2021;15:159–70. https://doi.org/10.2147/dddt.s287323. 10.2147/dddt.s287323
[11]
Jiskoot W, Hawe A, Menzen T, Volkin DB, Crommelin DJA. Ongoing challenges to develop high concentration monoclonal antibody-based formulations for subcutaneous administration: quo vadis? J Pharm Sci. 2022;111(4):861–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2021.11.008. 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.11.008
[12]
Manning MC, Holcomb RE, Payne RW, et al. Stability of protein pharmaceuticals: recent advances. Pharm Res. 2024;41(7):1301–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-024-03726-x. (In eng). 10.1007/s11095-024-03726-x
[13]
Kollár É, Balázs B, Tari T, Siró I. Development challenges of high concentration monoclonal antibody formulations. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2020;37:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddtec.2020.08.005. 10.1016/j.ddtec.2020.08.005
[14]
Holstein M, Hung J, Feroz H, et al. Strategies for high-concentration drug substance manufacturing to facilitate subcutaneous administration: a review. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2020;117(11):3591–606. 10.1002/bit.27510
[15]
Martínez-Ortega A, Herrera A, Salmerón-García A, Cabeza J, Perez-Robles R, Navas N. Degradation and in-use stability study of five marketed therapeutic monoclonal antibodies by generic weak cation exchange liquid chromatographic method ((WCX)HPLC/DAD). J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2022;1203:123295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2022.123295. 10.1016/j.jchromb.2022.123295
[16]
Global Genes. Alexion licenses Halozyme drug delivery technology in deal worth up to $680 million. (https://globalgenes.org/blog/alexion-licenses-halozyme-drug-delivery-technology-in-deal-worth-up-to-680-million/).
[17]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Highlights of prescribing information: ULTOMIRIS® (ravulizumab-cwvz) injection, for intravenous use. 2024.
[18]
Ultomiris® (ravulizumab-cwvz) – New formulation approval: Optum Rx. (https://professionals.optumrx.com/content/dam/optum3/professional-optumrx/news/rxnews/drug-approvals/drugapproval_ultomiris_2022-0727.pdf).
[19]
Berteau C, Filipe-Santos O, Wang T, Rojas H, Granger C, Schwarzenbach F. Evaluation of the impact of viscosity, injection volume, and injection flow rate on subcutaneous injection tolerance. Med Devices (Aukl) 2015:473–484. https://doi.org/10.2147/mder.s91019. 10.2147/mder.s91019
[20]
Woodley WD, Morel DR, Sutter DE, Pettis RJ, Bolick NG. Clinical evaluation of large volume subcutaneous injection tissue effects, pain, and acceptability in healthy adults. Clin Transl Sci. 2022;15(1):92–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13109. 10.1111/cts.13109
[21]
St Clair-Jones A, Prignano F, Goncalves J, Paul M, Sewerin P. Understanding and minimising injection-site pain following subcutaneous administration of biologics: a narrative review. Rheumatol Ther. 2020;7(4):741–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-020-00245-0. 10.1007/s40744-020-00245-0
[22]
Doughty DV, Clawson CZ, Lambert W, Subramony JA. Understanding subcutaneous tissue pressure for engineering injection devices for large-volume protein delivery. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105(7):2105–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2016.04.009. 10.1016/j.xphs.2016.04.009
[23]
Watt RP, Khatri H, Dibble ARG. Injectability as a function of viscosity and dosing materials for subcutaneous administration. Int J Pharm. 2019;554:376–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.11.012. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.11.012
[24]
Strickley RG, Lambert WJ. A review of formulations of commercially available antibodies. J Pharm Sci. 2021;110(7):2590-2608.e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2021.03.017. 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.03.017
[25]
Taghizadeh B, Jaafari MR, Zarghami N. New insight into the importance of formulation variables on parenteral growth hormone preparations: potential effect on the injection-site pain. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:963336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.963336. 10.3389/fendo.2022.963336
[26]
Kolhe P, Amend E, Singh SK. Impact of freezing on pH of buffered solutions and consequences for monoclonal antibody aggregation. Biotechnol Prog 2010;26(3):727–33. (In eng). https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.377. 10.1002/btpr.377
Metrics
6
Citations
26
References
Details
Published
Sep 11, 2025
Vol/Issue
27(6)
License
View
Cite This Article
Mehul Desai, Amitava Kundu, Michael Hageman, et al. (2025). Insights from a Survey of Drug Formulation Experts: Challenges and Preferences in High-Concentration Subcutaneous Biologic Drug Development. The AAPS Journal, 27(6). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-025-01132-8
Related

You May Also Like

Therapeutic Roles of Curcumin: Lessons Learned from Clinical Trials

Subash C. Gupta, Sridevi Patchva · 2012

1,664 citations

Effects of protein aggregates: An immunologic perspective

Amy S. Rosenberg · 2006

1,201 citations

Protein aggregation and bioprocessing

Mary E. M. Cromwell, Eric Hilario · 2006

658 citations