349 results
WHO guideline title | Product | TRS | Test name | Test category | 3Rs approach | Toggle to view all updates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Guidelines for independent lot release of vaccines by regulatory authorities |
n/a
|
978 Annex 2
|
Encouragement of networking and work-sharing
|
n/a
|
||
Original textSharing of test results can contribute to reducing the number of animals used for testing New textText should be stronger - sharing data should be an expectation
|
||||||
Guidelines for independent lot release of vaccines by regulatory authorities |
n/a
|
978 Annex 2
|
Practical considerations
|
n/a
|
||
Original textWhen animals are used for testing, the NCL should be aware of the potential variability of the source, housing and handling of animals. It is desirable to apply the “3R” principles (reduction, replacement, refinement) to minimize the use of animals, for ethical reasons. Validated in vitro alternatives should be favoured wherever possible. However, the type of testing should be driven by the scientific need for valid relevant data. Moreover, in the spirit of minimizing animal testing worldwide, agreements should be sought with the NCL of the exporting country or with other NCLs, in a mutual recognition or collaborative agreement, in order to utilize the results of animal testing already performed by another NCL. New textApplication of the 3Rs should be more than desirable. Need to emphasise the scientific and economic benefits including time to market reduction and prevention of shortage risk for patients. Linking to the statement on page 53 "Multiple testing can be costly and time consuming. In addition, many biological assays are highly variable, and repetitive testing can result in “false” OOS results, which then require extensive investigation and delay vaccine supply. The decision to repeat tests on a lot that has already been tested by another competent authority should be carefully considered in light of all available information."
|
||||||
WHO Manual for the establishment of national and other secondary standards for vaccines |
n/a
|
WHO/IVB/11.03
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
||
Original textAppendices illustrate model approaches and examples. The model approaches may need to be revised to reflect 3Rs New textManual should be revisited following revision of guidelines
|
||||||
WHO Manual for the establishment of national and other secondary standards for vaccines |
n/a
|
WHO/IVB/11.03
|
Calibration against IS (including collaborative study design)
|
n/a
|
||
Original textChapter 7 mentions experimental design 'sound statistical design principles'. This could be streathened and extended to include a general statement about model selection and the 3Rs. New textManual should be revisited following revision of guidelines
|
||||||
Guidelines on stability evaluation of vaccines |
n/a
|
962 Annex 3
|
Choice of stability-indicating parameters and frequency of testing
|
n/a
|
||
Original textThis is a general guideline describing strategies for the assessment and monitoring of vaccine stability, both during the development process and post-licensure. The selection of assays for stability studies would be dependent on the vaccine product, but should include safety- and potency-indicating parameters. Whether those assays are in vivo or in vitro is not defined or required within the document (as that would be dependent on the vaccine). New textA 3Rs approach should be recommended and emphasized in the definition of stability protocols, notably for post-licensure stability monitoring. It could be emphasized in Chapter 5.1 which mentions "stability-indicating parameters should be selected on a case-by-case basis".
Although tests are dependant on the vaccine, some 3Rs applications should be recommended as the guideline gives examples of tests that are vaccine specific.For example safety tests are mentionned such as reversibility, specific toxicity which apply to toxoid based vaccines : in that case reversibility testing is being removed and specific test is also being removed on drug product (refer to review of guidelines on tetanus and pertussis for example). If detoxification process is validatedand and initial toxicity test for release is compliant residual toxin and reversion are not stablity indicating parameters as they will not evolve over time. This is an example to illustrate that whatever the vaccine :
1) in vivo tests should not be mentionned per say (named cf p.180, 182, or stated example 185 :"" in addition to in vivo and in vitro potency"" : potency is sufficient)) as alternatives and removals are ongoing (including for the potency tests that are mentionned)
2) the guideline should recommend to introduce in vivo assays in stability study protocols only if justified that is if the quality attribute assessed through the in vivo assay is expected to evolve over time and if there is no alternative to assess that evolution"
|
||||||
Guidelines on stability evaluation of vaccines |
n/a
|
962 Annex 3
|
n/a
|
GST
|
||
Original textParameters other than potency-indicating ones should also be considered since they indicate changes in vaccine quality with unknown effects on efficacy and safety. Such parameters may include, in addition to in vivo and in vitro potency, antigen content, appearance, pH, general safety, specific toxicity, antimicrobial agent content, completeness of adsorption, sterility, adjuvant (adsorbent) content and changes in physicochemical properties. New textAs the general safety test is no longer recommended by WHO, this should be deleted from the text.
|
||||||
Manual for Quality Control of Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis Vaccines |
DTP vaccines
|
WHO/IVB/11.11
|
The use of laboratory animals in the quality control of vaccines
|
Miscellaneous
|
||
Original textBioassays performed on living animals are still the method of choice for evaluating the safety and potency of many bacterial vaccines. Before any new procedure is introduced it should be validated against the standard method to ensure at least non-inferiority of performance. Most bio-assays use either guinea-pigs or mice often in quite large numbers. The main shortcoming of such tests is the result of individual variation between animals which can result in low precision and poor reproducibility. More than any other system used for testing, animals have to be handled and maintained appropriately to generate accurate, reliable, and reproducible results. It is essential to be aware of all the factors that may affect the biological functions of the test animals, and thus interfere with the outcome of a potency, safety or toxicity test. New textManual should be revisited following revision of guidelines
|
||||||
Manual for Quality Control of Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis Vaccines |
DTP vaccines
|
WHO/IVB/11.11
|
Choice of animals
|
Miscellaneous
|
||
Original textTests performed to assure the safety and potency of diphtheria and tetanus vaccines should ideally be performed in guinea-pigs. However, these animals have become increasingly expensive and in some countries their supply and maintenance is problematic. New textManual should be revisited following revision of guidelines
|
||||||
Manual for Quality Control of Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis Vaccines |
DTP vaccines
|
WHO/IVB/11.11
|
Microbiological quality
|
Miscellaneous
|
||
Original textWhatever the disadvantages and problems associated with the use of animals as a “measuring device” in the quality control of vaccines, no test system is known which can replace animal models completely. The use of a reference can partly overcome the effect of external factors on test results. However, attention should be paid to the care and handling of laboratory animals to minimize effects of environment and nutrition and to maximize efficacy in their use, particularly in the quality control of bacterial vaccines. Animals should be bred and maintained in such a way that the maximum possible standardization and reproducibility are obtained. New textManual should be revisited following revision of guidelines
|
||||||
Manual for Quality Control of Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis Vaccines |
DTP vaccines
|
WHO/IVB/11.11
|
Potency in guinea pigs by challenge
|
Potency
|
||
Original textThe challenge potency test for diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed) is determined by comparing the dose of the vaccine to that of a reference preparation required to protect guinea pigs from either an erythrogenic toxic effect (toxin administered intradermally, i.d.) or a lethal toxic effect (toxin administered subcutaneously, s.c.) [1,2]. For this comparison, a reference preparation of diphtheria toxoid (adsorbed) calibrated in International Units (IU) and a suitable preparation of purified diphtheria toxin is required. The current International Standard for diphtheria toxoid with an assigned activity of New textManual should be revisited following revision of guidelines
|