Preview

Biological Products. Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment

Advanced search

Current regulatory requirements for non-clinical evaluation of prophylactic vaccines

https://doi.org/10.30895/2221-996X-2023-23-1-7-25

Abstract

Vaccines are subject to specific regulatory requirements for the evaluation of their quality, safety, and efficacy. In 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO), as the main international organisation coordinating measures to combat infectious disease outbreaks, began developing documents on the evaluation of vaccine quality, safety, and efficacy. The world’s leading regulatory authorities (FDA, EMA, etc.) have also issued recommendations for conducting non-clinical studies of vaccines.

The aim of this study was a critical review of the regulatory requirements established by foreign national and international regulatory authorities for non-clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

According to the study results, since the 2000s, the WHO and the world’s leading regulatory authorities have produced more than 40 regulatory documents describing certain aspects of non-clinical studies of the safety and efficacy of vaccines. These documents can be divided into two groups: the first group addresses non-clinical studies of vaccines in general, and the second one dwells upon the evaluation of the quality, safety, and efficacy of specific types of vaccines. For the Russian guidelines on non-clinical evaluation of the quality, safety, and efficacy of immunobiologicals, the latest revision dates back to 2013 and does not provide any information on new medicinal products. Currently, work is underway to prepare the regulatory framework for medicines, including vaccines, in the Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This review of regulatory documents on non-clinical safety and efficacy studies of vaccines may be useful in drafting harmonised guidelines for the relevant groups of vaccines in the EAEU. It may also be of use to developers, manufacturers, and researchers involved in the creation and non-clinical study of vaccines.

About the Authors

D. V. Gorenkov
Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products
Russian Federation

Dmitry V. Gorenkov

8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051



E. I. Komarovskaya
Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products
Russian Federation

Elena I. Komarovskaya

8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051



A. A. Soldatov
Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products
Russian Federation

Aleksandr A. Soldatov, Dr. Sci. (Med.)

8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051



Zh. I. Avdeeva
Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products
Russian Federation

Zhanna I. Avdeeva, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051



V. P. Bondarev
Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products
Russian Federation

Vladimir P. Bondarev, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051



References

1. Stratton K, Ford A, Rusch E, Clayton EW, eds. Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Institute of Medicine. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011.

2. Siegrist CA. Section 1: General aspects of vaccination. Vaccine immunology. In: Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA, Offit PA, eds. Vaccines. New York: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008. P. 17–36.

3. Soldatov AA, Gorenkov DV, Merkulov VA, Bondarev VP. Aspects and issues of marketing authorisation and use of medicinal products for COVID-19 prevention during the pandemic. Biological Products. Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment. 2022;22(4):361–81 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.30895/2221-996X-2022-22-4-361-381

4. Sheets RL, Stein J, Bailer RT, Koup RA, Andrews C, Nason M, et al. Biodistribution and toxicological safety of adenovirus type 5 and type 35 vectored vaccines against human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1), Ebola, or Marburg are similar despite differing adenovirus serotype vector, manufacturer’s construct, or gene inserts. J Immunotoxicol. 2008;5(3):315–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376510802312464

5. Tebas P, Roberts CC, Muthumani K, Reuschel EL, Kudchodkar SB, Zaidi FI, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of an anti-Zika virus DNA vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(12):e35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1708120

6. Sheets RL, Stein J, Manetz TS, Duffy C, Nason M, Andrews C, et al. Biodistribution of DNA plasmid vaccines against HIV-1, Ebola, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or West Nile virus is similar, without integration, despite differing plasmid backbones or gene inserts. Toxicol Sci. 2006;91(2):610–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfj169

7. Levenbook IS, Pelleu LJ, Elisberg BL. The monkey safety test for neurovirulence of yellow fever vaccines: the utility of quantitative clinical evaluation and histological examination. J Biol Stand. 1987;15(4):305–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-1157(87)80003-3

8. Snoy PJ. Establishing efficacy of human products using animals: the US food and drug administration’s “animal rule”. Vet Pathol. 2010;47(5):774–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985810372506


Supplementary files

Review

For citations:


Gorenkov D.V., Komarovskaya E.I., Soldatov A.A., Avdeeva Zh.I., Bondarev V.P. Current regulatory requirements for non-clinical evaluation of prophylactic vaccines. Biological Products. Prevention, Diagnosis, Treatment. 2023;23(1):7-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30895/2221-996X-2023-23-1-7-25

Views: 1108


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2221-996X (Print)
ISSN 2619-1156 (Online)