Collaborative study on influenza vaccine clinical trial serology - part 1: CHMP compliance study.

Q4 Medicine Pharmeuropa bio & scientific notes Pub Date : 2011-06-01
J M Wood, R W Newman, A Daas, E Terao, K-H Buchheit
{"title":"Collaborative study on influenza vaccine clinical trial serology - part 1: CHMP compliance study.","authors":"J M Wood,&nbsp;R W Newman,&nbsp;A Daas,&nbsp;E Terao,&nbsp;K-H Buchheit","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM, Council of Europe) and the European Union (EU) Commission to evaluate the reproducibility of clinical serology results for seasonal influenza vaccines and to assess the impact of technical differences between laboratories on the compliance with the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) criteria set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The study was run in 2 phases. The present article reports the 1st phase of the study, which aimed at evaluating the variability of the results obtained by 11 laboratories (5 national control laboratories and 6 influenza vaccine manufacturers) using their routine haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay to test a common panel of clinical trial sera. The results confirmed the limited inter-laboratory reproducibility of the HI testing of influenza vaccine clinical trial samples. In some cases a good agreement was found between laboratories, while a systematic bias or a random scatter of results was observed in other cases. Analysis of estimated systematic bias confirmed that differences between laboratories can be significant (up to 16-fold) in some cases. Correction for this bias resulted in limited improvement. Differences between laboratories were found to result in discrepant decisions on marketing acceptance of vaccines or to decisions based on compliance to different criteria. The study showed that the seroconversion (SC) and mean fold increase (MFI) criteria are more robust against systematic over- or under-estimation of titres whereas the protection rate (PR) is very sensitive to this effect. The fundamental issues with the PR criteria are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":39192,"journal":{"name":"Pharmeuropa bio & scientific notes","volume":"2011 1","pages":"27-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmeuropa bio & scientific notes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM, Council of Europe) and the European Union (EU) Commission to evaluate the reproducibility of clinical serology results for seasonal influenza vaccines and to assess the impact of technical differences between laboratories on the compliance with the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) criteria set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The study was run in 2 phases. The present article reports the 1st phase of the study, which aimed at evaluating the variability of the results obtained by 11 laboratories (5 national control laboratories and 6 influenza vaccine manufacturers) using their routine haemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay to test a common panel of clinical trial sera. The results confirmed the limited inter-laboratory reproducibility of the HI testing of influenza vaccine clinical trial samples. In some cases a good agreement was found between laboratories, while a systematic bias or a random scatter of results was observed in other cases. Analysis of estimated systematic bias confirmed that differences between laboratories can be significant (up to 16-fold) in some cases. Correction for this bias resulted in limited improvement. Differences between laboratories were found to result in discrepant decisions on marketing acceptance of vaccines or to decisions based on compliance to different criteria. The study showed that the seroconversion (SC) and mean fold increase (MFI) criteria are more robust against systematic over- or under-estimation of titres whereas the protection rate (PR) is very sensitive to this effect. The fundamental issues with the PR criteria are discussed.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
流感疫苗临床试验血清学的合作研究-第一部分:CHMP依从性研究。
欧洲理事会药品与卫生保健质量委员会(EDQM)和欧盟委员会(EU)将评估季节性流感疫苗临床血清学结果的可重复性,并评估实验室之间的技术差异对符合欧洲药品管理局(EMA)制定的人用药品委员会(CHMP)标准的影响。这项研究分两个阶段进行。本文报告了该研究的第一阶段,其目的是评估11个实验室(5个国家对照实验室和6个流感疫苗制造商)使用常规血凝抑制(HI)测定法检测一组常见临床试验血清所获得结果的可变性。结果证实流感疫苗临床试验样本的HI检测在实验室间的可重复性有限。在某些情况下,在实验室之间发现了良好的一致性,而在其他情况下,观察到系统偏差或随机分散的结果。对估计的系统偏倚的分析证实,在某些情况下,实验室之间的差异可能是显著的(高达16倍)。对这一偏差的纠正导致了有限的改善。研究发现,实验室之间的差异导致对疫苗的市场接受程度作出不同的决定,或根据遵守不同标准作出不同的决定。研究表明,血清转化率(SC)和平均倍数增加(MFI)标准对系统高估或低估滴度更为可靠,而保护率(PR)对这种影响非常敏感。讨论了PR标准的基本问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmeuropa bio & scientific notes
Pharmeuropa bio & scientific notes Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Collaborative study for the establishment of Ph. Eur. Biological Reference Preparation for Human tetanus immunoglobulin batch 2. Collaborative study for the establishment of Ph. Eur. Biological Reference Preparation for Human tetanus immunoglobulin batch 2. Determination of procoagulant activity in human normal immunoglobulin preparations for therapeutic use by FXIa chromogenic assay: Evaluation of test kit sensitivity, reference standard performance and product formulation effects on the FXIa assay. Ph. Eur. testing for histamine and depressor substances using guinea-pigs and cats: the end of an era. Strategy for removal of animal tests for histamine and depressor substances and their vestiges from the Ph. Eur. International collaborative study to assess new stocks of candidate reference preparations to control the level of anti-D in IVIG
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1