Stickings P, Rigsby P, Buchheit K-H, Sesardic D
Division of Bacteriology, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Health Protection Agency, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, EN6 3QG, UK.
Pharmeur Bio Sci Notes. 2009 Oct;2009(1):1-9.
A collaborative study was organised by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM) and the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) to establish replacement batches of the current World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) and European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) Biological Reference Preparation (BRP) for Diphtheria Vaccine (Adsorbed). Two candidates were assayed against the current 3rd IS/BRP batch 3 for Diphtheria Vaccine (Adsorbed) with an assigned potency of 160 IU/ampoule using established WHO/Ph. Eur. challenge methods in guinea pigs as described in the Ph. Eur. general chapter 2.7.6. Assay of diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed). Twenty-one laboratories (regulatory organisations and manufacturers) from 17 countries participated in the study. Two freeze-dried, stabilised diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed) preparations were included in the study: Preparation A (07/218) and Preparation B (07/216). As stocks of the 3rd IS were very low, the Diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed) BRP batch 3, which is identical to the 3rd IS but which was kept at the EDQM, was used for the calibration (coded Preparation C). The majority of participants performed 2 independent challenge tests. Five laboratories performed the intradermal challenge test, 16 laboratories performed the systemic challenge test. For Preparation A, the unweighted geometric mean potency estimate (with 95 % confidence limits) for all laboratories that provided valid results (n = 17) was 97.2 (89.5-105.6) IU/ampoule. For systemic challenge assays (n = 14) the unweighted geometric mean potency was 97.0 (88.1-106.7) IU/ampoule. The between-laboratory GCV was 17.4 % for all assays and 18.0 % for systemic challenge assays. There was no significant difference in estimates for intradermal or systemic challenge (p = 0.45). For Preparation B the unweighted geometric mean potency estimate (with 95 % confidence limits) for all laboratories that provided valid results (n = 19) was 213.4 (185.7-245.4) IU/ampoule. For systemic challenge assays (n = 14) the unweighted geometric mean potency was 202.0 (170.4-239.5) IU/ampoule. The between-laboratory GCV was 33.5 % for all assays and 34.3 % for systemic challenge assays. For both preparations there is a good agreement between results obtained from systemic and intradermal challenge methods. Greater between-laboratory variability was observed for systemic assays than for intradermal challenge assays, although the small number of intradermal assays performed in the study makes comparison difficult. The GCV for all assays was 17.4 % for potency estimates of Preparation A and 33.5 % for Preparation B. This compares favourably with the calibration of the current standard where the between-laboratory GCV for all assays was 28.3 %. From the collaborative study both Preparation A and Preparation B appeared suitable to replace the current Diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed) BRP batch 3. Due to the similarity of Preparation A with the current BRP batch 3, the Ph. Eur. Commission adopted Preparation A as Diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed) BRP batch 4 with an assigned potency of 97 IU/ampoule.
欧洲药品质量管理局(EDQM)和国家生物标准与控制研究所(NIBSC)组织了一项合作研究,以建立现行世界卫生组织(WHO)国际标准(IS)和欧洲药典(Ph. Eur.)吸附白喉疫苗生物参考制剂(BRP)的替代批次。使用欧洲药典通则2.7.6中所述的既定WHO/Ph. Eur.豚鼠攻毒方法,针对现行吸附白喉疫苗第3批IS/BRP批次3(指定效价为160 IU/安瓿)对两种候选品进行了测定。来自17个国家的21个实验室(监管机构和制造商)参与了该研究。研究中包括两种冻干、稳定的吸附白喉疫苗制剂:制剂A(07/218)和制剂B(07/216)。由于第3批IS的库存非常低,因此使用与第3批IS相同但保存在EDQM的吸附白喉疫苗BRP批次3进行校准(编码为制剂C)。大多数参与者进行了2次独立的攻毒试验。5个实验室进行了皮内攻毒试验,16个实验室进行了全身攻毒试验。对于制剂A,所有提供有效结果的实验室(n = 17)的未加权几何平均效价估计值(95%置信限)为97.2(89.5 - 105.6)IU/安瓿。对于全身攻毒试验(n = 14),未加权几何平均效价为97.0(88.1 - 106.7)IU/安瓿。所有试验的实验室间GCV为17.4%,全身攻毒试验为18.0%。皮内或全身攻毒估计值无显著差异(p = 0.45)。对于制剂B,所有提供有效结果的实验室(n = 19)的未加权几何平均效价估计值(95%置信限)为213.4(185.7 - 245.4)IU/安瓿。对于全身攻毒试验(n = 14),未加权几何平均效价为202.0(170.4 - 239.5)IU/安瓿。所有试验的实验室间GCV为33.5%,全身攻毒试验为34.3%。对于两种制剂,全身和皮内攻毒方法获得的结果之间具有良好的一致性。尽管研究中进行的皮内试验数量较少,使得比较困难,但全身试验的实验室间变异性比皮内攻毒试验更大。制剂A效价估计的所有试验的GCV为17.4% , 制剂B为33.5%。这与现行标准校准情况相比具有优势,现行标准所有试验的实验室间GCV为28.3%。从合作研究来看,制剂A和制剂B似乎都适合替代现行吸附白喉疫苗BRP批次3。由于制剂A与现行BRP批次3相似,欧洲药典委员会采用制剂A作为吸附白喉疫苗BRP批次4,指定效价为97 IU/安瓿。