Human Challenge Studies for Vaccine Development : Regulatory Aspects of Human Challenge Studies.

The traditional regulatory pathway for the evaluation of new vaccine candidates generally proceeds from preclinical through three successive phases of human trials, and the demonstration of efficacy is usually done through randomized-controlled clinical trials. However, human challenge trials or controlled human infection models have been used in vaccine clinical development to generate supportive data for establishment of correlates of protection, supportive data for licensure, as well as licensure in the case of Vaxchora® by the US FDA. Despite this, there are no codified regulations from national regulatory authorities (NRAs) that specifically address HCTs, nor guidance related to standardization of approaches to HCTs among regulators. NRAs may agree that HCTs are innovative, promising tools to accelerate vaccine development; however, a strong benefit/risk assessment is needed to ensure the safety of study participants. Lastly, it is important to consider the regulatory framework in which the human challenge trial may be conducted.

Clinical and regulatory development strategies for Shigella vaccines intended for children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries.

Shigellosis causes considerable public health burden, leading to excess deaths as well as acute and chronic consequences, particularly among children living in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Several Shigella vaccine candidates are advancing in clinical trials and offer promise. Although multiple target populations might benefit from a Shigella vaccine, the primary strategic goal of WHO is to accelerate the development and accessibility of safe, effective, and affordable Shigella vaccines that reduce mortality and morbidity in children younger than 5 years living in LMICs. WHO consulted with regulators and policy makers at national, regional, and global levels to evaluate pathways that could accelerate regulatory approval in this priority population. Special consideration was given to surrogate efficacy biomarkers, the role of controlled human infection models, and the establishment of correlates of protection. A field efficacy study in children younger than 5 years in LMICs is needed to ensure introduction in this priority population.

A research and development (R&D) roadmap for broadly protective coronavirus vaccines: A pandemic preparedness strategy.

Broadly protective coronavirus vaccines are an important tool for protecting against future SARS-CoV-2 variants and could play a critical role in mitigating the impact of future outbreaks or pandemics caused by novel coronaviruses. The Coronavirus Vaccines Research and Development (R&D) Roadmap (CVR) is aimed at promoting the development of such vaccines. The CVR, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation, was generated through a collaborative and iterative process, which was led by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota and involved 50 international subject matter experts and recognized leaders in the field. This report summarizes the major issues and areas of research outlined in the CVR and identifies high-priority milestones. The CVR covers a 6-year timeframe and is organized into five topic areas: virology, immunology, vaccinology, animal and human infection models, and policy and finance. Included in each topic area are key barriers, gaps, strategic goals, milestones, and additional R&D priorities. The roadmap includes 20 goals and 86 R&D milestones, 26 of which are ranked as high priority. By identifying key issues, and milestones for addressing them, the CVR provides a framework to guide funding and research campaigns that promote the development of broadly protective coronavirus vaccines.

The Regulatory Evaluation of Vaccines for Human Use.

A vaccine is an immunogen, the administration of which is intended to stimulate the immune system to prevent, ameliorate, or treat a disease or infection. A vaccine may be a live attenuated preparation of microorganisms, inactivated (killed) whole organisms, living irradiated cells, crude fractions, or purified immunogens, including those derived from recombinant DNA in a host cell, conjugates formed by covalent linkage of components, synthetic antigens, polynucleotides (such as the plasmid DNA vaccines), mRNA, living vectored cells expressing specific heterologous immunogens, or cells pulsed with immunogen. Vaccines are highly complex products that differ from small molecule drugs because of the biological nature of the source materials such as those derived from microorganisms as well as the various cell substrates from which some are derived. Regardless of the technology used, because of their complexities, vaccines must undergo extensive testing and characterization. Special expertise and procedures are required for the manufacture, control, and regulation of vaccines. Throughout their life cycle from preclinical evaluation to post-licensure lot release testing, vaccines are subject to rigorous testing and oversight by manufacturers and national regulatory authorities. In this chapter, an overview of the regulatory evaluation and testing requirements for vaccines is presented.

Vaccine Preparedness for the Next Influenza Pandemic: A Regulatory Perspective.

The response to SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated the tremendous potential of investments in vaccine research and development to impact a global pandemic, resulting in the rapid development and deployment of lifesaving vaccines. However, this unprecedented speed was insufficient to either effectively combat initial waves of the pandemic or adapt in real time to new variants. This review focuses on opportunities from a public health oriented regulatory perspective for enhancing research, development, evaluation, production, and monitoring of safety and effectiveness to facilitate more rapid availability of pandemic influenza vaccines. We briefly review regulatory pathways and processes relevant to pandemic influenza, including how they can be strengthened and globally coordinated. We then focus on what we believe are critical opportunities to provide better approaches, tools, and methods to accelerate and improve vaccine development and evaluation and thus greatly enhance pandemic preparedness. In particular, for the improved vaccines needed to respond to a future influenza pandemic better and more rapidly, moving as much of the development and evaluation process as possible into the pre-pandemic period is critical, including through approval and use of analogous seasonal influenza vaccines with defined immune correlates of protection.

Considerations for licensure of influenza vaccines with pandemic and prepandemic indications.

With over 409 human cases of avian influenza and over 256 deaths worldwide resulting from infection with avian influenza (H5N1), an influenza pandemic is still a real threat, especially with H5N1 continuing to evolve into antigenically distinct clades. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) along with other national regulatory authorities (NRAs) recognize the important role that safe and effective vaccines will play in protecting the public health from the threat of an influenza pandemic. The challenges to the FDA and other NRAs are significant as regulatory agencies pursue the development of new scientific and regulatory criteria to evaluate vaccines against pandemic influenza strains for licensure. To this end, the FDA is actively utilizing current regulatory processes such as accelerated approval and priority review as well as developing the regulatory pathways needed to speed the availability of vaccines against pandemic influenza. In May of 2007, the FDA issued two final guidance documents, one describing the clinical data recommended to support the licensure of annual influenza vaccines, and the other describing the clinical data recommended to support the licensure of pandemic influenza vaccines. These guidances contain specific approaches outlined by the FDA to assist manufacturers in developing new vaccines to increase the supply of safe and effective influenza vaccines for both annual and pandemic use. In this article we define the nomenclature "pandemic" and "prepandemic," describe the regulatory pathway for licensing new influenza vaccines for pandemic and prepandemic use, and outline considerations for evaluating pandemic/prepandemic vaccines that have been formulated using new approaches such as cell culture and non-aluminum salt adjuvants.

The Regulatory Evaluation of Vaccines for Human Use.

A vaccine is an immunogen, the administration of which is intended to stimulate the immune system to result in the prevention, amelioration, or therapy of any disease or infection (US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: content and format of chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information and establishment description information for a vaccine or related product). A vaccine may be a live attenuated preparation of microorganisms, inactivated (killed) whole organisms, living irradiated cells, crude fractions, or purified immunogens, including those derived from recombinant DNA in a host cell, conjugates formed by covalent linkage of components, synthetic antigens, polynucleotides (such as the plasmid DNA vaccines), living vectored cells expressing specific heterologous immunogens, or cells pulsed with immunogen. Vaccines are highly complex products that differ from small molecule drugs because of the biological nature of the source materials such as those derived from microorganisms as well as the various cell substrates from which some are derived. Regardless of the technology used, because of their complexities, vaccines must undergo extensive characterization and testing. Special expertise and procedures are needed for their manufacture, control, and regulation. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the National Regulatory Authority (NRA) in the United States responsible for assuring quality, safety, and effectiveness of all human medical products, including vaccines for human use.The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) within the US FDA is responsible for overseeing the regulation of therapeutic and preventative vaccines against infectious diseases. Authority for the regulation of vaccines resides in Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act and specific sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C). Vaccines are regulated as biologics and licensed based on the demonstration of safety and effectiveness. The vaccine development process can be divided into two major categories: those events that are not under the regulatory authority of the FDA and are exploratory in nature and those events that are subject to regulatory authority by the FDA. Exploratory events or research and development cover basic research drug discovery processes that occur before the sponsor submits an investigational new drug application (IND) to the FDA. There are four main stages of vaccine development under the purview of regulatory authorities: preclinical, clinical (IND), licensing, and post-licensure. Throughout their life cycle from preclinical evaluation to post-licensure lot release testing, vaccines are subject to rigorous testing and oversight by manufacturers and NRAs. In this chapter an overview of the regulatory evaluation and testing requirements for vaccines is presented.

Improving influenza vaccine virus selection: report of a WHO informal consultation held at WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland, 14-16 June 2010.

• For almost 60 years, the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System (GISRS) has been the key player in monitoring the evolution and spread of influenza viruses and recommending the strains to be used in human influenza vaccines. The GISRS has also worked to continually monitor and assess the risk posed by potential pandemic viruses and to guide appropriate public health responses. • The expanded and enhanced role of the GISRS following the adoption of the International Health Regulations (2005), recognition of the continuing threat posed by avian H5N1 and the aftermath of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic provide an opportune time to critically review the process by which influenza vaccine viruses are selected. In addition to identifying potential areas for improvement, such a review will also help to promote greater appreciation by the wider influenza and policy-making community of the complexity of influenza vaccine virus selection. • The selection process is highly coordinated and involves continual year-round integration of virological data and epidemiological information by National Influenza Centres (NICs), thorough antigenic and genetic characterization of viruses by WHO Collaborating Centres (WHOCCs) as part of selecting suitable candidate vaccine viruses, and the preparation of suitable reassortants and corresponding reagents for vaccine standardization by WHO Essential Regulatory Laboratories (ERLs). • Ensuring the optimal effectiveness of vaccines has been assisted in recent years by advances in molecular diagnosis and the availability of more extensive genetic sequence data. However, there remain a number of challenging constraints including variations in the assays used, the possibility of complications resulting from non-antigenic changes, the limited availability of suitable vaccine viruses and the requirement for recommendations to be made up to a year in advance of the peak of influenza season because of production constraints. • Effective collaboration and coordination between human and animal influenza networks is increasingly recognized as an essential requirement for the improved integration of data on animal and human viruses, the identification of unusual influenza A viruses infecting human, the evaluation of pandemic risk and the selection of candidate viruses for pandemic vaccines. • Training workshops, assessments and donations have led to significant increases in trained laboratory personnel and equipment with resulting expansion in both geographical surveillance coverage and in the capacities of NICs and other laboratories. This has resulted in a significant increase in the volume of information reported to WHO on the spread, intensity and impact of influenza. In addition, initiatives such as the WHO Shipment Fund Project have facilitated the timely sharing of clinical specimens and virus isolates and contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the global distribution and temporal circulation of different viruses. It will be important to sustain and build upon the gains made in these and other areas. • Although the haemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay is likely to remain the assay of choice for the antigenic characterization of viruses in the foreseeable future, alternative assays - for example based upon advanced recombinant DNA and protein technologies - may be more adaptable to automation. Other technologies such as microtitre neuraminidase inhibition assays may also have significant implications for both vaccine virus selection and vaccine development. • Microneutralization assays provide an important adjunct to the HAI assay in virus antigenic characterization. Improvements in the use and potential automation of such assays should facilitate large-scale serological studies, while other advanced techniques such as epitope mapping should allow for a more accurate assessment of the quality of a protective immune response and aid the development of additional criteria for measuring immunity. • Standardized seroepidemiological surveys to assess the impact of influenza in a population could help to establish well-characterized banks of age-stratified representative sera as a national, regional and global resource, while providing direct evidence of the specific benefits of vaccination. • Advances in high-throughput genetic sequencing coupled with advanced bioinformatics tools, together with more X-ray crystallographic data, should accelerate understanding of the genetic and phenotypic changes that underlie virus evolution and more specifically help to predict the influence of amino acid changes on virus antigenicity. • Complex mathematical modelling techniques are increasingly being used to gain insights into the evolution and epidemiology of influenza viruses. However, their value in predicting the timing and nature of future antigenic and genetic changes is likely to be limited at present. The application of simpler non-mechanistic statistical algorithms, such as those already used as the basis of antigenic cartography, and phylogenetic modelling are more likely to be useful in facilitating vaccine virus selection and in aiding assessment of the pandemic potential of avian and other animal influenza viruses. • The adoption of alternative vaccine technologies - such as live-attenuated, quadrivalent or non-HA-based vaccines - has significant implications for vaccine virus selection, as well as for vaccine regulatory and manufacturing processes. Recent collaboration between the GISRS and vaccine manufacturers has resulted in the increased availability of egg isolates and high-growth reassortants for vaccine production, the development of qualified cell cultures and the investigation of alternative methods of vaccine potency testing. WHO will continue to support these and other efforts to increase the reliability and timeliness of the global influenza vaccine supply. • The WHO GISRS and its partners are continually working to identify improvements, harness new technologies and strengthen and sustain collaboration. WHO will continue in its central role of coordinating worldwide expertise to meet the increasing public health need for influenza vaccines and will support efforts to improve the vaccine virus selection process, including through the convening of periodic international consultations.

Food and Drug Administration regulation and evaluation of vaccines.

The vaccine-approval process in the United States is regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the life cycle of development, from preclinical studies to after licensure, vaccines are subject to rigorous testing and oversight. Manufacturers must adhere to good manufacturing practices and control procedures to ensure the quality of vaccines. As mandated by Title 21 of the Code of Regulations, licensed vaccines must meet stringent criteria for safety, efficacy, and potency.

Aluminum salts in vaccines--US perspective.

Aluminum in the form of aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate or alum has been commonly used as an adjuvant in many vaccines licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration. Chapter 21 of the US Code of Federal Regulations [610.15(a)] limits the amount of aluminum in biological products, including vaccines, to 0.85 mg/dose. The amount of aluminum in vaccines currently licensed in the US ranges from 0.85-0.125 mg/dose. Clinical studies have demonstrated that aluminum enhances the antigenicity of some vaccines such as diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. Moreover, aluminum-adsorbed diphtheria and tetanus toxoids are distinctly more effective than plain fluid toxoids for primary immunization of children. There is little difference between plain and adsorbed toxoids for booster immunization. Aluminum adjuvants have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades; however, these adjuvants have been associated with severe local reactions such as erythema, subcutaneous nodules and contact hypersensitivity.