Drying-Induced Variations in Physico-Chemical Properties of Amorphous Pharmaceuticals and Their Impact on Stability (I): Stability of a Monoclonal AntibodyOfficial contribution of NIST; not subject to copyright in the U.S. Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this article in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, n

The present study was conducted to investigate the impact of drying method and formulation on the storage stability of IgG1. Formulations of IgG1 with varying levels of sucrose with and without surfactant were dried by different methods, namely freeze drying, spray drying, and foam drying. Dried powders were characterized by thermal analysis, scanning electron microscopy, specific surface area (SSA) analysis, electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA), solid state FTIR, and molecular mobility measurements by both isothermal calorimetry and incoherent elastic neutron scattering. Dried formulations were subjected to storage stability studies at 40°C and 50°C (aggregate levels were measured by size exclusion chromatography initially and at different time points). Both drying method and formulation had a significant impact on the properties of IgG1 powders, including storage stability. Among the drying methods, SSA was highest and perturbations in secondary structure were lowest with the spray‐dried preparations. Sucrose‐rich foams had the lowest SSA and the lowest protein surface accumulation. Also, sucrose‐rich foams had the lowest molecular mobility (both fast dynamics and global motions). Stability studies showed a log‐linear dependence of physical stability on composition. Preparations manufactured by “Foam Drying” were the most stable, regardless of the stabilizer level. In protein‐rich formulations, freeze‐dried powders showed the poorest storage stability and the stability differences were correlated to differences in secondary structure. In stabilizer‐rich formulations, stability differences were best correlated to differences in molecular mobility (fast dynamics) and total protein surface accumulation. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 96:1983–2008, 2007