Evaluation of a non-invasive, inhalational challenge method for rabies vaccine potency assay.

Veterinary rabies vaccines are essential for safeguarding the public from exposure to rabies virus, as vaccination of domestic animals provides a barrier between humans and wildlife reservoirs. Ensuring rabies vaccines are potent and effective is paramount in preventing human exposure to rabies virus. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) test, a mouse vaccination-challenge assay, is the most widely used and internationally recognized assay for potency testing of inactivated rabies vaccines, and it is currently considered the method of choice. In the NIH test, vaccinated mice are challenged by the intracranial (IC) route. The response to the IC challenge can be variable, which often results in invalid tests. In addition, the IC challenge-exposure raises animal welfare concerns. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intranasal route of challenge as a modification to the NIH test to reduce animal pain and suffering until harmonized requirements for in vitro testing of rabies vaccines are developed. Results confirm the intranasal route is an effective route of rabies challenge in mice. However, a valid challenge requires the use of a more concentrated inoculum, in comparison to the intracranial method.

Rabies vaccine standards: comparison of the 5th and 6th WHO international reference standards to the USDA veterinary reference standard.

Ensuring rabies vaccines are potent and effective is paramount in preventing transmission of this deadly disease and safeguarding public health. Efficacy of human and veterinary vaccines is ensured by evaluating relative potency estimates of the vaccine compared to a rabies reference standard using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) test. Reference vaccines are based on the International Standard for Rabies Vaccine provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). A comparison study was conducted to determine the relative potency of the 5th WHO, 6th WHO, and United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) 08-14 reference standards using the NIH test. Results from the study demonstrate that the 6th WHO reference standard is approximately twice as potent as the 5th WHO reference when reconstituted to contain 1 IU per ml. Based on these results, the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) doubled the reconstitution volume of USDA veterinary reference 08-14 from 13 ml to 26 ml, for an initial use dilution of 0.7 IU per ml for use by veterinary biologics manufacturers in the NIH test. This study emphasizes the importance of reference standard calibration for use in the National Institutes of Health test.

Potency testing of veterinary rabies vaccines: replacement of challenge by in vitro testing: considerations for development of alternative assays.

Vaccination of domestic animals against rabies creates a critical barrier between wildlife reservoirs and the human population. Ensuring these vaccines are potent and effective is paramount in preventing human exposure to this deadly and costly disease. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) test is, at present, the most widely used and internationally recommended potency assay for batch testing inactivated rabies vaccines. This test has numerous inherent limitations and disadvantages, including a lack of precision. The NIH test requires a large number of animals and involves unrelieved pain and suffering. A relevant in vitro assay should provide a more accurate, reproducible, rapid, safe, and humane rabies vaccine potency test.

Novel, potent and selective chimeric FXa inhibitors featuring hydrophobic P1-ketoamide moieties.

Judicious combination of P-region sequences of highly potent anticoagulant proteins including NAP5, NAP6, Ecotin, and Antistasin with SAR from small molecule FXa inhibitors led to a series of chimeric inhibitors of formula 1a-j. We report herein the design, synthesis, and biological activity of this novel family of FXa inhibitors that express both high in vitro potency and superb selectivity against related serine proteases.

Novel hydrazino-carbonyl-amino-methylated polystyrene (HCAM) resin methodology for the synthesis of P1-aldehyde protease inhibitor candidates.

[structure: see text] A new strategy for the synthesis of peptidyl and peptidomimetic P1-aldehydes 3 on HCAM solid support is described. The appropriate C-terminal aldehyde precursors were prepared and anchored to a resin support via a semicarbazone linkage (HCAM resin). After synthetic elaboration, acidic hydrolysis efficiently delivered C-terminal target aldehydes 3a-h in good overall yields and in excellent purity.

An introduction to analytical methods for the postmarketing surveillance of veterinary vaccines.

Any analysis of spontaneous AER data must consider the many biases inherent in the observation and reporting of vaccine adverse events. The absence of a clear probability structure requires statistical procedures to be used in a spirit of exploratory description rather than definitive confirmation. The extent of such descriptions should be temperate, without the implication that they extend to parent populations. It is important to recognize the presence of overdispersion in selecting methods and constructing models. Important stochastic or systematic features of the data may always be unknown. Our attempts to delineate what constitutes an AER have not eliminated all the fuzziness in its definition. Some count every event in a report as a separate AER. Besides confusing the role of event and report, this introduces a complex correlational structure, since multiple event descriptions received in a single report can hardly be considered independent. The many events described by one reporter would then become inordinately weighted. The alternative is to record an AER once, regardless of how many event descriptions it includes. As a practical compromise, many regard the simultaneous submission of several report forms by one reporter as a single AER, and the next submission by that reporter as another AER. This method is reasonable when reporters submit AERs very infrequently. When individual reporters make frequent reports, it becomes difficult to justify the inconsistency of counting multiple events as a single AER when they are submitted together, but as separate AERs when they are reported at different times. While either choice is imperfect, the latter approach is currently used by the USDA and its licensed manufacturers in developing a mandatory postmarketing surveillance system for veterinary immunobiologicals in the United States. Under the proposed system, summaries of an estimated 10,000 AERs received annually by the manufacturers would be submitted to the USDA. In quantitative summaries, AERs received from lay consumers are usually weighted equally with those received from veterinary health professionals, although arguments have been advanced for separate classifications. The emphasis on AER rate estimation differentiates the surveillance of veterinary vaccines by the USDA CVB from the surveillance of veterinary drugs as practiced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). The FDA CVM does, in fact, perform a retrodictive causality assessment for individual AERs (Parkhie et al., 1995). This distinction reflects the differences between vaccines and drugs, as well as the difference in regulatory philosophy between the FDA and the USDA. The modified Kramer algorithm (Kramer et al., 1979) used by the FDA relies on features more appropriate to drug therapy than vaccination, such as an ongoing treatment regimen which allows evaluation of the response to dechallenge and rechallenge. In tracking AERs, the FDA has emphasized the inclusion of clinical manifestations on labels and inserts, while the USDA has been reluctant to have such information appear in product literature or to use postmarketing data for this purpose. The potential for the misuse of spontaneous AER data is great. Disinformation is likely when the nature of this type of data is misunderstood and inappropriate analytical methods blindly employed. A greater danger lies in the glib transformation of AER data into something else entirely. Since approval before publication is not required, advertisements for veterinary vaccines appear with claims such as "over 3 million doses, 99.9905% satisfaction rating," or "11,500,000 doses, 99.98% reaction free." These claims, presumably based on spontaneous AERs, are almost fraudulent in their deceptiveness. Are we to suppose that 11.5 million vaccinations were observed for reactions? In comparing the two advertisements, we find the second presumed AER rate is double the first. (ABSTRACT TRU

Comparison of non parallel immunoassay curves resulting from mixtures of competing antigens.

Relative potency is a measure that has been used for many years to summarize the comparison of dose-response curves in parallel line bioassays. When response curves for two preparations are not parallel the traditional definition of relative potency no longer applies. We review the concept of relative potency and show that, in some situations, it can be given meaning for non-parallel curves as the ratio of biological activity in full strength assay preparations. Under an assumption that non-parallel curves result from the competition of mixtures of antigens for receptor binding sites, estimation of relative potency for non-parallel curves can be accomplished. We show that estimation of models for both parallel curve and response attenuation situations may be accomplished within the framework of generalized linear models. This estimation depends on the ability to deal with non-linear parameters appearing in the link function, and an iterative algorithm depending on direct parameter updates is outlined. The topics discussed are illustrated with the analysis of data from two immunoassays conducted with veterinary vaccines. The models developed here depend in an essential way on the assumption of response attenuation by competing antigens. Our methods may not be appropriate for non-parallel curves caused by other phenomena.

Interpretation and estimation of relative potency in vaccines.

The implication of relative potency varies between categories of assays. This review clarifies the meaning of the relative potency concept in each of several classes of assays commonly used to evaluate vaccines, so that an appropriate analytical procedure may be selected. Methods of estimating relative potency are reviewed and illustrated.