↓ Skip to main content

Antibody Drug Conjugates: Nonclinical Safety Considerations

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
5 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
Antibody Drug Conjugates: Nonclinical Safety Considerations
Published in
The AAPS Journal, May 2015
DOI 10.1208/s12248-015-9790-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Jane Masson Hinrichs, Rakesh Dixit

Abstract

Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) are biopharmaceutical molecules consisting of a cytotoxic small molecule covalently linked to a targeted protein carrier via a stable cleavable or noncleavable linker. The process of conjugation yields a highly complex molecule with biochemical properties that are distinct from those of the unconjugated components. The impact of these biochemical differences on the safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of the conjugate must be considered when determining the types of nonclinical safety studies required to support clinical development of ADCs. The hybrid nature of ADCs highlights the need for a science-based approach to safety assessment that incorporates relevant aspects of small and large molecule testing paradigms. This thinking is reflected in current regulatory guidelines, where sections pertaining to conjugates allow for a flexible approach to nonclinical safety testing. The aim of this article is to review regulatory expectations regarding early assessment of nonclinical safety considerations and discuss how recent advances in our understanding of ADC-mediated toxicity can be used to guide the types of nonclinical safety studies needed to support ADC clinical development. The review will also explore nonclinical testing strategies that can be used to streamline ADC development by assessing the safety and efficacy of next generation ADC constructs using a rodent screen approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Other 11 8%
Student > Master 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 33 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 13%
Chemistry 13 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 8%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 35 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#7,123,837
of 23,269,984 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#401
of 1,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,533
of 268,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,269,984 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,300 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.