1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      FcRn as a Transporter for Nasal Delivery of Biologics: A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          FcRn plays a major role in regulating immune homeostasis, but it is also able to transport biologics across cellular barriers. The question of whether FcRn could be an efficient transporter of biologics across the nasal epithelial barrier is of particular interest, as it would allow a less invasive strategy for the administration of biologics in comparison to subcutaneous, intramuscular or intravenous administrations, which are often used in clinical practice. A focused systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. It was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews PROSPERO, which helped in identifying articles that met the inclusion criteria. Clinical and preclinical studies involving FcRn and the nasal delivery of biologics were screened, and the risk of bias was assessed across studies using the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT). Among the 12 studies finally included in this systematic review (out of the 758 studies screened), 11 demonstrated efficient transcytosis of biologics through the nasal epithelium. Only three studies evaluated the potential toxicity of biologics’ intranasal delivery, and they all showed that it was safe. This systematic review confirmed that FcRn is expressed in the nasal airway and the olfactory epithelium, and that FcRn may play a role in IgG and/or IgG-derived molecule-transcytosis across the airway epithelium. However, additional research is needed to better characterize the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of biologics after their intranasal delivery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references117

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

              Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Mol Sci
                Int J Mol Sci
                ijms
                International Journal of Molecular Sciences
                MDPI
                1422-0067
                17 June 2021
                June 2021
                : 22
                : 12
                : 6475
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Service d’ORL, D’otoneurochirurgie et de Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale, Pierre Bénite, CEDEX, F-69495 Lyon, France
                [2 ]Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, F-69003 Lyon, France; sandra.le-quellec@ 123456chu-lyon.fr (S.L.Q.); mikail.nourredine@ 123456chu-lyon.fr (M.N.)
                [3 ]Univ Paris Est Creteil, INSERM, IMRB, F-94010 Créteil, France; sophiebartier@ 123456hotmail.fr (S.B.); andre.coste@ 123456chicreteil.fr (A.C.); bruno.louis@ 123456inserm.fr (B.L.); emilie.bequignon@ 123456gmail.com (E.B.)
                [4 ]CNRS ERL 7000, F-94010 Créteil, France
                [5 ]Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Cardiologique Louis Pradel, Unité D’hémostase Clinique, CEDEX, F-69500 Bron, France
                [6 ]EA 4609 Hémostase et Cancer, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69372 Lyon, France
                [7 ]Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre de Biologie et de Pathologie Est, Service D’hématologie Biologique, CEDEX, F-69500 Bron, France
                [8 ]Service d’ORL, de Chirurgie Cervico Faciale, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, F-94000 Créteil, France
                [9 ]Service d’ORL, de Chirurgie Cervico Faciale, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, F-94010 Créteil, France
                [10 ]Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service de la Documentation Centrale, CEDEX, F-69424 Lyon, France; caroline.giroudon@ 123456chu-lyon.fr
                [11 ]Hospices Civils de Lyon, Service de Biostatistique et Bioinformatique, F-69003 Lyon, France
                [12 ]CNRS, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive UMR 5558, F-69100 Villeurbanne, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: maxime.fieux@ 123456chu-lyon.fr ; Tel.: +33-4-7266-6415
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8317-2286
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0952-0091
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5193-5776
                Article
                ijms-22-06475
                10.3390/ijms22126475
                8234196
                34204226
                af92c38a-63ea-439e-84be-3e342661ecb1
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 10 May 2021
                : 11 June 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Molecular biology
                neonatal fc receptor,monoclonal antibody,immunoglobulin g,fc-fusion protein,transcytosis,nasal route,biologics

                Comments

                Comment on this article