Review Article - Microbiology: Current Research (2018) Volume 2, Issue 3

Quality control of vaccines-A journey from classical approach to 3Rs.

Suresh Kumar^1*, Mahendra Pal Singh¹, Vijay K. Bharti², Ramendra Pati Pandey³

¹National Institute of Biologicals, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

²Defence Institute of High Altitude Research (DIHAR), DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Leh-Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir, India

³Department of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil

*Corresponding Author:

Suresh Kumar
National Institute of Biologicals
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
E-mail: suresh.kumar@nib.gov.in

Accepted date: March 04, 2018

Abstract

Most vaccines for human and veterinary use are complex biological preparations having one or more antigens along with an adjuvant product to improve the immune response against the specific disease. Conventional vaccines have used numerous animals for production and quality compliance before the release of the final product. Animal based potency tests were required to help in ensuring that each batch of vaccine is consistently safe, pure, potent and effective by providing a level of protection as determined in the original efficacy studies. As a result, the levels of pain and suffering in animals were compromised as compared to other purposes of animal experimentation. Therefore, there is a need to identify viable options to replace these methods of vaccine production and quality check without affecting their quality, potency, and efficacy. This review article will highlight the progress and breakthroughs about the achievements of 3Rs (replace, reduce, and refine) principles especially in the development of alternative test models including physio-biochemical, immunochemical and in-vitro methods using so- called “consistency approach” in the area of human and veterinary vaccinology. This article also provides a critical review on the various methods used for potency assays and the factors affecting the accuracy of these methods.

Keywords

Potency test, Vaccine, 3Rs.

Introduction

Vaccines have been proved a wonderful tool of immunization in modern medicine, which saved more, lives worldwide than any other medical product or procedure in past 50 years. Their importance will further increase in coming the days due to more outbreaks of contagious diseases with varied strain and serotypes. According to literature, history of vaccination can be traced back to ancient Greece as far as 429 BC. The Greek Thucydides noticed that people who survived the smallpox plague in Athens did not become re-infected with the disease. Later on, in 900 AD, Chinese were the first to discover and use a primitive form of vaccination called variolation. The aim was to prevented smallpox by exposing healthy people with tissue from the scabs of diseased person. In 1796, a British physician Dr. Edward Jenner discovered vaccination in its modern form and proved to the scientific community that it worked. Subsequently, Royal Jennerian Institute founded in 1803 for the production of the vaccines [1].

Different types of vaccines, classified on the basis of the antigen used in their preparation have been shown in the Table 1 below:

Table 1: Examples of vaccines by types.

Potency assay is one of the main methods used for assuring the quality of vaccine which is based on the measurement of one or several parameters that have been shown to be related directly or indirectly with product efficacy (the ability to produce an effective level of protection in the target species) [2]. The quality control tests of vaccines have their roots in the work of 19th century scientists Pasteur, Koch, Behring, and Ehrlich. The multi-dilution test design assay with the use of reference preparation which depended upon ED₅₀ was introduced between 1930s-1950s. Subsequently, the current In-vivo quality control tests for established vaccines have been developed during 1950s-1970s (Kendrick test, NIH, etc.) [3].

The main types of potency tests performed by vaccine manufacturers includes in-vitro titration of live organisms), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and in-vivo methods involving immunization of small laboratory animals (e.g., mice, rats & guinea pigs) followed by challenge with a toxin/virus/bacteria or titration of immune sera to measure the antibody response. For live, attenuated vaccines, in-vitro potency assay is mainly used but it is not commonly used for inactivated vaccines [4]. Since, production of vaccine occurs in batches, there is an obviousness of variation in their characteristics if strict controls are not ensured. Therefore, all the manufacturer and regulatory bodies has duty to formulate quality procedures for potency testing using various in-vivo or in-vitro assays.

The use of "alternative" methods are generally concerned with the Principles of the 3Rs,- Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement-of animal testing, first proposed by the scientists William Russell and Rex Burch in their book 'The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique' (1959). Subsequently, various regulatory bodies encourages the development of alternative methods with appropriate relevance, supporting data and test method validation to reduce, refine and replace the animal use for vaccine potency testing. The present review article will provide a deep insight in the progress and achievements of 3Rs in the development of alternative test methods along with discussions on the relevant factors that might be responsible for slow progress in the introduction of alternatives particularly test validation and harmonization of Guidelines.

Quality Control of Vaccines

Some methods in biomedical research and testing are used in the modern era of science without undergoing any major change from their early development onwards. This is well applied to potency measurement, especially in vaccines. A test for potency is one of the required listed tests (21CFR610.10) which shall consist of either in-vitro or in-vivo tests, or both, that have been specifically designed for each product so as to indicate its potency in an adequate manner to satisfy the interpretation of potency given by the definition in 600.3(s). As per 21CFR600.3(s), “potency” is defined as “the specific ability or capacity of the product, as indicated by appropriate laboratory tests or by adequately controlled clinical data obtained through the administration of the product in the manner intended, to affect a given result.” [5].

Vaccines are derived from living organisms which can be easily distinguished from chemical pharmaceuticals due to their complex physical, chemical and molecular compositions [6]. This indicates that their characteristics may vary from batch to batch, therefore, each batch is considered to be unique. Moreover, the inherent variability of living organisms, the potential of contamination coming from starting materials and the environment must require strict control measures to ensure product consistency, safety and efficacy of each batch [6].

As per norms, safety, quality, and efficacy of the products are the prime legal responsibility of the manufacturer in the countries where vaccines are manufactured and marketed.

These bodies are responsible for the review of licensing applications, lot release, and monitoring the performance of product. Therefore, details of processes by which the vaccine is produced and tested including the in-process and final product testing are the primary goal of the manufacturer [6]. However, accomplishing this goal depends largely on the quality control tests conducted at various critical steps during the production process and application of Good Manufacturing Practices [7,8].

Previously established concepts and methods of quality control were based on the uniqueness of each individual batch of vaccine. The consistency in the production of vaccine means that each batch of the product is of the same quality and is within the same specifications of the batch which has been shown to be safe and efficacious in human trials or in the target animal species. However, a shift in emphasis away from reliance on final product testing will require the development of a control scheme for each product or product class. Therefore, the development and validation of alternative methods based on the principles of 3Rs for potency testing of vaccines to establish consistency in different batches is crucial and of prime importance before the product moves to international markets [6].

Importance of 3Rs in the Field of Vaccinology

The potency test is mainly used for quality control evaluation of vaccines based on an immunization-challenge procedure in laboratory animals. Many attempts have been made to modify these animal models to improve its relevance and statistical significance. However, the principle of immunizationchallenge procedure in laboratory animals is still being used in vaccine research and routine lot-release testings. However, these models have proven to be instrumental in scientifically underpinning the correlation between protection of selected vaccine antigens and their efficacy [9]. The quality control evaluations of vaccines require high frequency of tests with large number of laboratory animals. These potency tests are multi-dose models that include a challenge procedure with virulent micro-organisms [10]. As a result, animal suffer substantial pain and distress during the testing period.

Generally, use of laboratory animal can be scientifically justified if the study benefits for public or veterinary health versus distress to animals and costs of experiment. In spite of that, there is a strong feeling in public circles that how the laboratory animals can be replaced, reduced or refined of their use in biomedical research and testing. Although, for the time being, few of the animal models in vaccine research and development are inevitable and irreplaceable, a significant progress has been made in using in-vitro pre-screening tests to evaluate immunological parameters. For a long time, in-vivo potency tests have been used for routine vaccine lot-release and most of the pharmacopeia relied on direct or indirectchallenge procedure in laboratory animals [9].

Major limitations of the challenge model are that the procedure is expensive and time consuming. It usually takes 2 months for results to come. Moreover, most of the vaccines have shelf life of about 2 years and after this test the vaccine reaches market with only 22 months of life. Potency tests have been designed to measure the ability of the vaccine to protect against subsequent challenge with the active component responsible for pathogenicity. Besides, use of virulent microorganisms or toxins in in-vivo potency assays poses a potential risk to those working in the laboratory. Furthermore, there is striking evidence that some surrogate models for potency testing poorly predict the efficacy of the vaccine in the target species [11]. Therefore, the routine use of these methods has not resulted in the on time release of effective vaccines. Use of in-vitro methods might limit the use of in-vivo models for quality evaluation of vaccines. Additionally, the animal models have several limitations in respect of their relevance, reliability, costs and moral acceptability.

The 3Rs approach is driven by the scientific limitations of the animal models used in potency test of vaccines. There are few examples like the rabies vaccine potency assay (or NIH test) which has a poor reproducibility and wide confidence intervals [12]. Moreover, these tests have to be repeated to get the valid results. The safety test in quality control of veterinary vaccines is often criticized for its doubtful relevance [13]. In addition, animal use in viral vaccine production is strongly discouraged for safety reasons as the animal cells might be a source for transmission of pathogens. Finally, all alternative approaches have one thing in common that they have ultimately resulted in refinement, reduction or replacement of animals use. Now, there is an increased interest in the development of alternatives to the current in-vivo potency tests. Newer models are mainly based on the use of serology instead of the challenge, use of humane endpoints or in-vitro antigen-quantification tests. This new avenue in the quality control of vaccines is called the “consistency approach” which is state-of-the-art in quality control of the new-generation vaccines. In this promising approach, a set of parameters are used to constitute a product profile [9]. These parameters are monitored throughout production and aim to demonstrate that each new batch of vaccine produced is of a similar quality to a vaccine batch of the same provenance, and is of proven efficacy and safety. The consistency in this new approach relies heavily on the implementation of quality systems, such as good manufacturing practice and quality assurance. Further, this strategy involves demonstrating consistency by using a battery of immunochemical, physicochemical and in-vitro methods [14].

Assessment of the Potency Assay

The safety and potency assessment are the main tests used during vaccine development. Usually a set of 15-20 assay results have to be made available for making quality control and monitoring chart. Therefore, the availability of fast and reliable methods further benefits the existing vaccines by using in-vitro alternatives for in-vivo safety tests. For example, the use of a PCR based method to measure a virulent poliovirus in oral polio vaccine preventing neuro virulence testing in monkeys [15]. Another example is a very sensitive in-vitro vero cell assay for the detection of residual diphtheria toxin described in the Ph Eur. Monograph [16]. Further, safety of a vaccine is ensured by consistency in production and effective post-marketing surveillance.

The available potency assays can be divided into four different categories: challenge test, toxin neutralizing test, cell-based assays and titration assays. The test of potency for liveattenuated vaccines is generally determined by measurement of the number of viable particles, either by colony counting or by virus titration. The use of quantitative PCR (qPCR) has also appeared to be feasible in some cases instead of performing virus titration [17]. The main advantage of qPCR is that it is faster, accurate and reproducible.

Challenge Test

The challenge test has been used for decades for the quality testing of vaccines, still inferior products arrive in the market. Therefore, the interest in new approaches is increasing especially for lot release testing. In safety point of view, it is easy to manage the risks in cell culture lab as compared to Animal Facility. Although all procedures can be performed in safety cabinets and animals can be housed in containment systems (e.g., isolators or individually ventilated cages) but the injection of virulent material or manipulation of contaminated animals exposes technicians to additional risks. Moreover, animal testing is also laborious, time consuming and expensive.

As mentioned earlier most of the vaccines have a shelf life of less than 2 years and a routine potency test requires around 8 weeks, which is undesirable. Nowadays, due to strict ethical regulations, specific housing conditions such as barrier systems and ventilation equipments, the maintenance cost of animals are rising. In most western countries, majority of scientific community is inclined towards non-animal experimentations, especially for those experiments which inflicts severe pain and suffering [18]. These tests mainly based on large numbers of animals, usually over 100 animals per test and in the majority of cases, the animals will show severe clinical signs. As a result policy makers often emphasize the development of new methods based on 3 Rs. Apart from the economic and ethical reasons, there are also scientific reasons to overlook animal based potency tests. In rabies vaccine and whole-cell pertussis vaccine, the results have poor intra- and inter laboratory reproducibility, resulting in repeat tests by manufacturers [19,20].

In challenge test, determining an immune response in animal model as a correlate for protection against a disease would facilitate the rational development of an effective vaccine. However, finding such a correlate can be difficult. These animal models only assessed the interactions of the organism with the innate, humoral and cellular immune system. However, it is extremely difficult to develop animal models strictly for human pathogens such as Neisseria meningitis, due to the specificity of a range of surface proteins that interact with the host receptors [21]. One of the critical steps required for developing an animal model is identification of molecules that play important role in attachment of pathogens to host cells.

Further, the potency tests are questioned in a term of their clinical efficacy like in case of tetanus vaccine. Moreover, studies have demonstrated a lack of correlations with efficacy in clinical studies [22]. Additionally, some animal models do not mimic the human situation like whole cell pertussis potency testing. In regulatory requirement animals are challenged by the intra-cerebral route and not by the intranasal route, which is the natural port of entry for Bordetella pertussis. Moreover, the potency testing does not provide any information about the effect of booster immunizations or the time interval for weaning of immunity [23].

Transgenic mice expressing human target receptors such as CD46 or CD66 have been developed by using genetic methods and used for measles virus or Neisseria infections [24,25]. In addition, the ‘humanized immunodeficient mice’, in which human tissue retaining immunological functions is transplanted into mice, can be used. In mice transplanted with human umbilical cord blood CD34+ cells, human immune functions could be reconstructed and studied in the presence of HIV infections [26]. However, the infection induced immune responses (direct challenge procedure) may not always match the protection appeared after vaccination in the laboratory animal model [27].

New version of the in-vivo potency tests

During 1980’s, the animal numbers per vaccine was strictly followed as per monograph of pharmacopeia due to prevailing widespread variation in response of individual animals. In the meantime, many factors especially health status, microbiological status of the animals, skills of the technicians, food quality and overall conditions of the Animal facility have been optimized. As a result, there was a reduction in variation in response of testing animals which further allowed a significant in cutback in number of animals per vaccine dilution which was revealed in many studies [28-30].

Based on the outcome of these studies, the WHO and Ph.Eur. have made a slight modification in traditional classical challenge test. These agencies have revised their guidance by indicating that the number of animals to be used should meet the confidence interval criteria specified. Moreover, a single dose potency approach used for diphtheria and tetanus toxoid vaccine in the monograph of Ph. Eur. in place of multi-dose potency test has been allowed further to reduce the number of animals. If there is consistency in vaccine production, the single dose approach is only an option which indicates that the vaccine under study meets the minimum requirement in IU/ml [31].

Humane endpoint and in-vivo potency test

A humane endpoint is the point at which an experimental animal’s pain and/or distress can be terminated, minimized, or reduced by actions such as killing the animal humanely, terminating a painful procedure, or providing treatment to relieve pain and/or distress (CCAC 1998) [32]. Humane endpoint can be realized by replacing crude general endpoints such as death or severe clinical findings with more specific local end without compromising of the scientific outcome of the test. The 3R methods have been developed for several vaccines that include a nonclinical endpoint, ultimately resulting in the reduction in number of animals and significant decline in pain and distress. An example is the use of serology in potency testing of tetanus and diphtheria toxoid vaccines. Humane endpoint might be considered as the best approach to limit the level and duration for several potency assays in which replacement of animal is not possible [33].

As per regulatory guideline, new batches of vaccines must be tested to ensure that they are safe and can provide protective immunity. In general, the routine testing typically involves immunization of several groups of animals with different dilutions of the vaccines followed by exposure of the animals to the infectious agent of interest. Animals with insufficient protective immunity develop induced infections. Unprotected animals often develop the disease which is frequently lethal. Although regulatory authorities have in the past typically required death as an endpoint for such studies, some authorities now allow the humane killing of moribund animals (USDA1998b) [34].

Now, most of the pharmacopoeias or guidelines on vaccine quality accept the concept of establishing humane endpoints in vaccine potency testing based on the scientific applicability. According to 9 CFR 117.4 (e) (USDA), “test animals that show clinical signs of illness that are due to the test may be treated humanely, destroyed if the illness has progressed to a point when death is certain to occur without therapeutic intervention.” [35,36]. Severe clinical signs or death are the endpoint of potency test in most of the pharmacopeia. The object behind humane endpoints is to reduce the time interval of pain and distress an animal have to suffer by killing the animal in an early stage of disease without compromising the scientific objective of the test.

In May 2012, the USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) issued guidance on the use of humane endpoints and methods in animal testing of biological products. CVB Notice No. 12-12 includes specific guidance regarding the use of humane endpoints in biological products testings, including the rabies challenge test. These guidelines emphases on the use of the anaesthesia for intra-cerebral inoculation of mice during rabies vaccine testing and encourages the use of analgesics in animal studies and potency testings when it can be shown that the study outcome is not affected [37].

To set the humane endpoints in vaccine potency testing, identification of parameters which are predictive of death or severe clinical signs are required. Generally, two types of humane endpoints based on clinical signs and pathophysiological parameters (body weight and body temperature) are used. The use of humane endpoints during the potency testing of whole cell pertussis vaccine, human inactivated rabies, tetanus, and diphtheria vaccines has been shown in the Table 2 below:

Table 2: Examples of earlier humane endpoint for vaccine potency assays.

The use of humane endpoint has been widely accepted in most pharmacopeia, still, regulatory authorities in individual countries might adhere to results obtained by the lethal challenge test. There might be several reasons for reluctance. However, the obstacles are very serious in nature. Therefore, the International acceptance of humane endpoints will require harmonization or mutual recognition of test requirements. The motto of the implementation of humane endpoints in vaccine quality control does not result in scientific benefits or economic profits but is a matter of humane care and ethics. Now, it is time for regulatory authorities to play a key role in encouraging implementation of humane endpoints when reviewing manufacturer’s submissions for lot release based on lethal challenge end-points.

In-vivo models of Serological Analyses to Refine Animal Use

A slight modification of the traditional potency assay has been achieved by developing serological assay that measures antibody level or some other aspects of the adaptive immune response instead of direct challenge or in-vivo toxin neutralization. In serological methods the amount of protective antibody produced is measured which serves as an indicator of vaccine potency. The procedure is significantly less severe than challenge methods. Nowadays, most of the vaccines licensed today depend on the induction of serum antibodies for their efficacy. For various pathogens particular levels of antibodies have been identified or suggested that confer protection (see the ‘Clinical development’ section) [43]. Moreover, antibody responses are easy to measure in ELISA or in newly developed multiplex assays analyzing titers for several antigens simultaneously in very small serum volumes [44-47].

Serological methods for several models like clostridial species, diphtheria, pertussis, rabies and leptospiral are available and even validated in large scale through inter laboratory studies organized by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM) and, in the case of the tetanus vaccine, in collaboration with the EU European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods [48,49]. Ph.Eur. has revised their monographs based on the output of these products and now include serology as an alternative to using the challenge procedure. Examples of serological potency assays as 3R alternatives have been shown in the Table 3 below:

Table 3: Examples of serological potency assays as 3R alternative.

Further, a single-dilution assay can be a valid procedure to demonstrate that a product exceeds the minimal requirement given for potency provided that consistency in production and testing has been proven. Information is presented justifying the use of a single dilution assay based upon quantitative responses for establishing the potency of diphtheria toxoid vaccines. Data of 27 multi-dilution assays on the diphtheria toxoid component of DPT-polio vaccines were retrospectively analysed for consistency in production and testing. Criteria for analysis are given and a protocol for quality assurance of a single dilution assay based upon serology is discussed [50]. However, the use of single dilution assay for the purpose of the batch release is already allowed by WHO. Though, WHO Guidelines should clearly indicate in which circumstances the simplified assay could be used and in which circumstances full assay is required [51].

Besides, Safety, animal welfare (Refine/ reduce), efficiency and test monitoring is very much ensured by ELISA based serological tests if compared to conventional challenge test. In ELISA there is no direct exposure with virulent microorganisms or toxin in the animal facility as well as with experimental animals, therefore the toxin, pain and distress levels in animals have been reduced from severe to minor. Additionally, the performance time is reduced by omitting the observation period and using a quantitative endpoint (antibody titre) which further allow a substantial reduction in the number of animals required per vaccine dose. Moreover, the serology also offers the storage of test samples i.e. serum material that can be reused for questions coming from post-marketing surveillance or for retesting of samples from vaccine manufacturers by regulatory authorities [52].

Nowadays, combination vaccines are receiving importance because of their continued demand for the protection against multiple diseases, especially in children. However, their potency estimates for each of active compound present a unique challenge. For example, potency testing for the DTaP combination vaccine typically requires separate tests for each of the major components (diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis). Therefore, combining the individual potency procedures into one serological test for multivalent vaccines would have an immediate and significant impact on reducing animal use.

Immune response in vertebrate organism is most complex and interactive in nature, involving various cells of the immune system in a cascade of reactions after contact with the antigen. The main determinants in the cascade of reactions are antigen presenting cells (APCs), such as monocytes and dendritic cells, antibody-producing B lymphocytes, helper T cells, killer T cells and memory B and T cells. These cells are further supported by so-called accessory cells (fibroblast, endothelial cells) as well as cell products such as cytokines and chemokines that play an important role in intercellular communications [52].

Today there are several in-vitro immunogenicity models are available which range from very simple peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) cultures to complex co-culture systems including various types of immune cells as well as accessory cells. General conceptions about these models are that they hardly mimic the complex immune response, particularly when correlates of protection for specific immune parameters have not yet been established. However, some have shown good correlation between vaccine quality and cytokine profiles such as stimulation of PBMCs with tetanus toxoid [52].

The major limitations of these models are that they represent only a particular phase during the development of the immune response. Moreover, in-vitro conditions (antigen dose, cell density and cell–cell interaction) differ substantially from in-vivo situation. In these models, primary responses are difficult to measure due to low number of potentially responsive cells. Therefore, these models at present have been of little help for mandatory required quality control of traditional vaccines. However, the importance is continuously increasing in vaccine development studies that focus on studying a particular aspect of the immune response [52].

Antigen Quantification

Nowadays, some human vaccines do not require the use of animals because in-vitro methods have been developed that quantify the presence of the protective antigen. In-vitro antigen quantification tests are performed either mainly by determining the number of live particles in case of live attenuated bacterial vaccines (e.g., Bacillus Calmette- Guérin, typhoid and cholera) or, in case of live viral vaccines, by virus titration in cell cultures using end points such as plaque formation, cytopathology and indirectly by virus neutralization using virus-specific serological reagents.

These tests are considered as state-of-the-art technique for lotrelease potency testing of live attenuated vaccines or genetically modified live vaccines based on binding of key protective antigens to specific antibodies in an in-vitro immunoassay. At present, these methods represent the most promising in-vitro approaches for the replacement of animals used in vaccine potency testing. But these tests have been successfully implemented (regulatory acceptance) for only a few products. These include hepatitis A/B vaccines, inactivated polio vaccine, polysaccharide and polysaccharide conjugate vaccines, and human papillomavirus vaccine as shown in the Table 4 below:

Table 4: Examples of human vaccine potency tests that replace the use of animals.

Currently, in-vitro antigen quantification methods represent the most promising approaches for the replacement of animals used in vaccine potency testing. However, there are few limitations in antigen quantification test that it only measures antigen quantity which do not necessarily reflect biological activity. Another limitation for potency testing of inactivated vaccines is that most products include an adjuvant product. These adjuvants cause direct interference with assay (e.g., high background, non-parallelism). Therefore, the adjuvant has to be removed before antigen quantification and also need to ensure that the process used for removal of adjuvant does not affect recovery and/or integrity of the antigen, which could interfere with its detection in the assay [4].

High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)/Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

Nowadays, a majority of industries are inclining toward the use of in-vitro assays. Therefore, regulators in certain regions have been concerned with assessing the impact of the adjuvant on serial potency. This can be achieved through a variety of physical and chemical assays, including particle sizing, aluminium concentration, HPLC and through following tightly controlled Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) in production systems and component specifications. Moreover, HPLC as an additional potential assay method has shown outstanding results for the quantification of the new purified peptide or subunit vaccines. But still there is need for further development and validation of this method.

Another method is quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) which has been proposed as an alternative to potency assay due to its ability to determine the number of organisms based on the nucleic acid copy number. However, since the qPCR does not measure either the expression or conformation of the target antigen, its use is limited to a potential supportive assay in combination with another assay. However, cell cultures based assays are widely accepted. Therefore, the use of cell culture toxicity as a replacement for mouse in clostridium antitoxin determination has also been proposed [61].

Acheviements of 3Rs methods in Vaccinology

In general, the development of an alternative method requires a clear understanding of the purpose for which the assay is to be used. Accordingly, it is important to discriminate between testing procedures for development of novel vaccine, the batch quality control of licensed vaccines and fully established products. Generally, it is possible to use tests which are different from those used to determine the efficacy of novel formulations for the release of established products. However, these batch release tests should be a subset of those used to characterize the product going into clinical trials. To develop effective and credible alternative methods, it is essential to understand the mechanism of action of vaccine [11].

In vaccines, the relevant and robust assay development generally requires the knowledge of both the mechanism of induction of a protective immune response and the mode of action of the pathogenic entity in causing disease. Moreover, the development of mechanism based assays would also require an understanding of how virulence factors exert their pathogenic effects. Assays developed by following these criteria will lead to the complete replacement of animal models. However, lack of scientific knowledge at present limits the development of such mechanism based assays.

At the moment, there is a paradigm shift in the concept of vaccine quality control from classical to consistency approach. Main emphasis is being put on ensuring the consistency in production of a vaccine and not regarding each batch produced as a unique product. Therefore, the main focus should remain in monitoring of consistency rather than to establish the true effectiveness of a vaccine. The characteristics of a new batch of vaccine should be similar to those of a batch which has been shown to be safe and efficacious [2].

For classical animal tests, many alternative methods for the quality control of vaccines have been developed in last two decades and even they have been implemented successfully.

But in some vaccine products, in-vitro assays will not be able to completely replace animal models but in near future, the potency testing in animals is likely to disappear when current vaccines are replaced by highly purified and well-characterised genetically engineered products. As these new generation vaccines are better defined and allow the use of in-vitro and physico-chemical methods for their quality control, thus using less or no animals for the quality control of batches. The 3Rs achievement in quality control of vaccine has is shown in Table 5 for human vaccines and Table 6 for veterinary vaccines below:

Table 5: Examples of 3Rs achievements for human vaccine potency tests.

Table 6: Examples of 3Rs achievements for veterinary vaccine potency tests.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a need for rigorous in-process quality control monitoring than the end batch testing. Remarkable advancements have been made in the development, maintenance, and upgradation of in-vitro potency assays like ELISA, Cell culture, SDS-PAGE, 2-D gel electrophoresis, Serology, etc. which minimize the animal use and suffering. However, many hindrances are still encountered in the implementation of 3Rs principles for vaccine potency assays due to their unique compositions, multivalency, and long life cycles. Therefore, relentless research work is required by both health industries and regulatory agencies for the development and validation of robust 3Rs methods at the global scenario.

Other prevailing challenges in the implementation of 3Rs principles are the lack of comprehensive harmonization of regulatory requirements, cooperation by health authorities to accept deviations from established guidelines and strong incentive to develop and implement alternatives of animal testings valid for global regulations. All the alternative methods data should be validated with the in-vivo methods for comparison and thereafter should be included in the guidelines for quality control. Many countries are still using the traditional methods due to lack of mutual acceptance of data (MAD) between the regulatory agencies. If these advanced validated methods are strictly applied at the global level within the time-bound framework by the regulatory agencies, this might be helpful in reducing the numbers as well as the unwanted suffering inflicted to animals during the potency assays.

References

1. Kripalni A. Histotorical aspect of vaccine. Int J of Gyanecol and Obst. 2016;2:1-1.
2. Hendriksen C.Validation of Alternative Methods for the Potency Testing of Vaccines. ATLA. 1998;26:747-61.
3. Uhlrich S. 3Rs in Quality control of vaccines for human use: opportunities and barriers Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences. Sanofi Pasteur Asian congress, Karatsu, Saga, Japan. 2016.
4. Richard MF, Daniela V, Warren C, et al. Non-animal replacement methods for human vaccine potency testing: state of the science and future directions. Procedia in Vaccinol. 2011;5:16-32.
5. Code of Federal regulations. Title-21 Food and Drugs, Chapter I, Subchapter F & G. 600-799.
6. WHO updates on Regulation and quality control of vaccines. Biologicals. 2017.
7. Guidelines for national authorities on quality assurance for biological products. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 1992;31:44.
8. General introduction. In Manual of Laboratory Methods for Potency Testing of Vaccines Used in the WHO Expanded Programme on Immunisation. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. 1997;3-12.
9. Hendriksen C. Replacement, reduction and refinement alternatives to animal use in vaccine potency measurement. Expert Review of Vaccines. 2014;8:313-22.
10. Hendriksen C. Three Rs achievements in vaccinology. AATEX. 2007;14:575-9.
11. Hendriksen CFM, Garthoff B, Aggerbeck H, et al. Alternatives to animal testing in the quality control of immunobiologicals: current status and future prospects. ATLA. 1994;22:420-34.
12. Bruckner. Three R approaches in the quality control of inactivated rabies vaccines.. ATLA. 2003;31:429-54.
13. AGAATI. The target animal safety test-Is it still relevant? Biologicals. 2002;30:277-88.
14. Metz B, Brunel F, Chamberlin C, et al. The potential of physico-chemical and immunochemical assays to replace animal tests in the quality control of toxoid vaccines. ATLA. 2007;35:323-31.
15. Lu Z, Douthitt MP, Taffs RE, et al. Quantitative aspects of the mutant analysis by PCR and restriction enzyme cleavage (MAPREC). PCR Methods Appl. 1993;3:176-80.
16. Diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed). In Monograph 0443. Eur Pharmacopeia Commission (5th Ed). 2005;660-1.
17. Schalk JA, de Vries CG, Jongen PM. Potency estimation of measles, mumps and rubella trivalent vaccines with quantitative PCR infectivity assay. Biologicals. 2005;33:71-9.
18. Aldhous P, Coghlan A, Copley J. Let the people speak. New Scientist.1999;22:26-31.
19. Russell WMS, Burch RL. Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London, UK. 1959.
20. Bruckner L, Cussler K, Halder M, et al. Three Rs approaches in the quality control of inactivated rabies vaccines. ATLA.2003;31:429-54.
21. Gorringe AR, Reddin KM, Funnell SG, et al. Experimental disease models for the assessment of meningococcal vaccines. Vaccine. 2005;23:2214-7.
22. Relyveld E, Bengounia A, Huet M, et al. Antibody response of pregnant women to two different adsorbed tetanus toxoids. Vaccine. 1991;9:369-72.
23. Kreeftenberg JG. Report of an informal meeting about alternative methods for the potency control of the diphtheria and tetanus components in vaccines. Dev Biol Stand. 1986; 65:261-6.
24. Mrkic B, Pavlovic J, Rulicke T et al. Measles virus spread and pathogenesis in genetically modified mice. J Virol. 1998;72:7420-7.
25. Johansson L, Rytkonen A, Bergman P, et al. CD46 in meningococcal disease. Sci. 2003;301:373-5.
26. Nomura T, Tamaoki N, Takakura A, et al. Basic concept of development and practical application of animal models for human diseases. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2008;324:1-24.
27. Plotkin SA. Vaccines: correlates of vaccine-induced immunity. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:401-9.
28. Stainer DW, Jakus CM, Sparkus JD. Reduction in animal usage for potency testing of diphtheria and tetanus toxoids. Develop Biol Stand. 1986;65:241-4.
29. Knight PA, Roberts PAG. Studies on the minimal number of animals required to achieve assurance of satisfactory potency in diphtheria and tetanus vaccines. Develop Biol Stand. 1986;65:245-55.
30. Hendriksen CFM, Gun van der JW, Marsman FR, et al. The effects of reductions in the numbers of animals used for the potency assay of the diphtheria and tetanus components of adsorbed vaccines by the methods of the European Pharmacopoeia. J Biol Stand. 1987;15:353-62.
31. Winsnes R, Hendriksen C, Sesardic D, et al. Serological assays as alternatives to the Ph.Eur. challenge test for batch release of tetanus vaccines for humanuse. Dev Biol Stand. 1999;101:277-88.
32. The CCAC guidelines on: choosing an appropriate endpoint in experiments using animals for research, teaching and testing. 1998.
33. Hendriksen CFM, Steen B. Refinement of Vaccine Potency Testing with the Use of Humane Endpoints. LAR Journal.2000;41:105-13.
34. William S. Humane Endpoints for Laboratory Animals Used in Regulatory Testing. ILAR Journal. 2002;43:31-8.
35. Code of Federal regulations. Title-9 Animals and Animal products, Chapter I, Subchapter E, Part 117, Section 117.4-Test animals.
36. USDA, Animal Welfare. Final Rules: CFR, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products, Part 117 Animals at Licensed Establishments, 117.4 (e)-Test animals Animals and Animal Products. 1998;813.
37. USDA, Centre for Veterinary Biologics. 2012.
38. Olfert ED, Godson DL. Humane endpoints for infectious disease animal models. ILAR J. 2000;41:99-104.
39. Calver G, Gavieres J, Shakarchi N, et al. Enhancing laboratory animal well-being through refinement by establishing non-lethal endpoints in regulatory assays of certain biologicals. (Abstract). ATLA. 2000;27:373.
40. Cussler K, Morton DB, Hendriksen CFM. Possibilities for the use of humane endpoints in vaccine potency tests. In: Balls M, van Zeller AM, Haider M, eds. Progress in the Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement of Animal Experimentation. Elsevier. 2000;915-27.
41. Hendriksen CFM, Woltjes J, Akkermans AM, et al. Interlaboratory validation of in vitro serological assay systems to assess the potency of tetanus toxoid invaccines for veterinary use. Biologicals. 1994;22:257-68.
42. Validation of an alternative method to animal challenge assay for diptheria vaccine: outcome of a collaborative study. Pharmeuropa, Special issue, Bio. 1996-2.
43. Plotkin SA. Vaccines: correlates of vaccine-induced immunity. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47:401-9.
44. Lal G, Balmer P, Joseph H, et al. Development and evaluation of a tetraplex flow cytometric assay for quantitation of serum antibodies to Neisseria meningitidissero groups A, C, Y, and W-135. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2004;11:272-9.
45. Lal G, Balmer P, Stanford E, et al. Development and validation of a non aplex assay for the simultaneous quantitation of antibodies to nine Streptococcus pneumoniae serotypes. J Immunol Methods. 2005;296:135-47.
46. Smith JF, Kowalski R, Esser MT, et al. Evolution of type-specific immunoassays to evaluate the functional immune response to Gardasil: a vaccine for human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 6 and 11. Hum Vaccin. 2008;4:134-42.
47. van Gageldonk PG, van Schaijk FG, van der Klis FR, et al. Development and validation of a multiplex immunoassay serum antibodies to Bordetella pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus. J Immunol Methods. 2008;335:79-89.
48. Winsnes R, Hendriksen C. Collaborativestudy for the validation of serological methods for potency testing of tetanus toxoid vaccines for human use. Pharmeuropa Spec Issue Bio. 2001;2000:1-92.
49. Winsnes R, Sesardic D, Daas A, et al. Collaborative study for the validation of serological methods for potency testing of diphtheria toxoid vaccines-part 1. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2004;2: 35-68.
50. Akkermans AM, Hendriksen CFM, Marsman FR, et al. Evaluation and validation of a single-dilution potency assay based upon serology of vaccines containing diphtheria toxoid: analysis for consistency in production and testing at the laboratory of the Control of Biological Products of the RIVM. RIVM Report 172203001. 1993.
51. WHO consultation on DT potency assay and consistency measurement. 2002.
52. Hendriksen CFM. Replacement, reduction and refinementalternatives to animal use in vaccine potency measurement Expert Rev. Vaccines. 2008;8:30.
53. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 1935. Hepatitis A Vaccine Inactivated, Ph Eur. 6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
54. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 1056. Hepatitis B Vaccine rDNA, Ph Eur. 6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
55. Method of Analysis. Biological assays: Assay of hepatitis B vaccine (rDNA) [ch. 2.7.15]. In: European Pharmacopoeia, 67th ed.Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM), Council of Europe. 2011.
56. World Health Organization. Requirements for Hepatitis B Vaccine Inactivated. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Forty-eighth report. Geneva, World Health Organization, (WHO Technical Report Series No. 889). 1999.
57. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products. Part 113- Standard Requirements. Section 113.119. SAM 613: Supplemental Assay Method for In vitro Potency Testing of Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae Bacterins. 2009. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/vb_sams_600_series.shtml
58. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products. Part 113- Standard Requirements. SAM 120: Supplemental Assay Method for the in vitro Potency Assay of Bovine Respiratory Viruses in Killed Vaccines. 1991. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/vb_sams_100_series.shtml
59. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2008:0870. Newcastle Disease Vaccine (Inactivated). Strasbourg, France: EuropeanDepartment for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
60. Claassen I, Maas R, Oei H, et al. Validation study to evaluate the reproducibility of a candidate in vitro potency assay of Newcastle disease vaccines and to establish the suitability of a candidate biological reference preparation. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2004;1:1-15
61. Draayer H. Overview of currently approved veterinary vaccine potency testing methods and methods in development that do not require animal use. Procedia in Vaccinology. 2011;5:171-4.
62. Kim BC, Kim DK, Kim HJ, et al. A collaborative study of an alternative in vitro potency assay for the Japanese encephalitis vaccine. Virus Res. 2016;223:190-6.
63. Council of Europe 2.7.8 Assay of Tetanus vaccine (adsorbed). European Pharmacopoeia. 2003.
64. ECVAM, ESAC Statement on the Application of the ELISA Procedure for Batch Potency Testing of Tetanus Vaccines for Human Use. 2002.
65. ECVAM, ESAC Statement on the Application of the ToBI Test for Batch Potency Testing of Tetanus Vaccines for Human Use. 2000.
66. NICEATM-ICCVAM (2012) Alternative Methods for Vaccine Testing, Serology Test for Batch Potency Testing of Human Tetanus Vaccines.
67. Council of Europe (CE), 2.7.6 Assay of Diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed). In: European Pharmacopoeia, 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: CE. 2008.
68. Winsnes R, Sesardic D, Daas A, et al. Collaborative study for the validation of serological methods for potency testing of diphtheria toxoid vaccines-part 1. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2004;2:35-68.
69. Winsnes R, Sesardic D, Daas A. et al. Collaborative study for the validation of serological methods for potency testing of diphtheria toxoid vaccines-part 2. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2006;1:73-88.
70. World Health Organization. Recommendations for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and combined vaccines (Amendments 2003). In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Fifty-fourth report. Geneva, World Health Organization, (WHO Technical Report Series No. 927). 2005.
71. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 20706. Assay of diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed), Ph.Eur. 6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
72. Office of the Federal Register (U.S.) Title 9 – Animals and Animal Products, Pt.1-199. In: Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Revised as of January 1. 2009.
73. WHO Drug Information. 2017;31:1
74. Lin G. A time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay to assay the rabies virus glycoprotein: application for estimation of human rabies vaccine potency. Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 7288. 2017.
75. WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardisation. Forty-eighth Report, WHO Technical Report Series, No. 889. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO). 1999.
76. Final Report: IABS Scientific Workshop on Neurovirulence Tests of Live Virus Vaccines. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO). 2005.
77. Dragunsky E, Nomura T, Karpinski K, et al. Transgenic mice as an alternative to monkeys for neurovirulence testing of live oral poliovirus vaccine: validation by a WHO collaborative study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2003;81:251-60.
78. Council of Europe (CE). Absence of toxin and irreversibility of toxoid-Diphtheria vaccine (adsorbed). In: European Pharmacopoeia, 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: CE. 2008.
79. Method of Analysis. Biological assays: Assay of hepatitis B vaccine (rDNA) [ch. 2.7.15]. In: European Pharmacopoeia, 67th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM), Council of Europe. 2011.
80. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 1056. Hepatitis B vaccine (rDNA), Ph.Eur.6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
81. Giffroy D, Mazy C, Duchêne M. Validation of a new ELISA method for in vitro potency assay of hepatitis B-containing vaccines. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2006;1:7-14.
82. Descamps J, Mary A, Rommel E, et al. Release potency tests of hepatitis vaccines. In: Sesardic D, Brown F, Hendriksen CFM, editors. Alternatives to Animals in the Development and Control of Biological Products for Human and Veterinary Use.Meeting of the International Association of Biological Standardization. September 1998. London. Dev Biol Stand. 1999;100:289-94.
83. Juan LA, Rocío IDC. Development and validation of serological methods for human vaccine potency testing: case study of an anthrax vaccine. Procedia in Vaccinology. 2011;5: 213-20.
84. Coenraad FMH. Humane endpoints in vaccine potency testing. Procedia in Vaccinology. 2011;5:221-6.
85. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 1356. Pertussis Vaccine Acellular Component, Absorbed, Ph.Eur.6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
86. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 1595. Pertussis Vaccine Acellular, Copurified, Absorbed, Ph.Eur. 6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
87. Japanese Minimum Requirements for Biological Products. National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan. 2006.
88. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 20701.Immunochemical methods, Ph.Eur. 6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
89. World Health Organization. Requirements for Hepatitis A Vaccine Inactivated. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Forty-fifth report. Geneva, World Health Organization. 1995.
90. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 214. Poliomyelitis Vaccine Inactivated, Ph.Eur. 6th Edition. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
91. World Health Organization. Requirements for Oral Poliomyelitis Vaccine. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Fifty-first report. Geneva, World Health Organization. 2002.
92. Shank-Retzlaff M, Wang F, Morley T, et al. Correlation between Mouse Potency and In Vitro Relative Potency for Human Papillomavirus Type 16 Virus-Like Particles and Gardasil ® Vaccine Samples. Human Vaccines. 2005;1:191-7.
93. Ranheim l, Mathis PK, Joelsson DB, et al. Development and application of a quantitative RT-PCR potency assay for a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RotaTeq). J Virol Methods. 2006;131:193-201.
94. Der-Yuan W, Sheng-Yen Y, Ching-Pang C, et al. Evaluation and Validation of Potency Testing Method for Live Rubella Virus Vaccine. J Food Drug Anal. 2001:9:183-90.
95. Leparc-GI, Poirier B, El Zaouk A, et al. New generation of cell culture assay for smallpox vaccine potency. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41:3687-9.
96. Schalk J, de Vries C, Jongen P. Potency estimation of measles, mumps and rubella trivalent vaccines with quantitative PCR infectivity assay. Biologicals. 2005;33:71-9.
97. Xing D, Markey K, Das RG, et al. Whole-cell pertussis vaccine potency assays: the Kendrick test and alternative assays. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2014;13:1175-82.
98. Xing D, Yuen CT, Asokanathan C, et al. Evaluation of an in vitro assay system as a potential alternative to current histamine sensitization test for acellular pertussis vaccines. Biologicals. 2012;40:456-65.
99. Sunny Chang H, David AS. Development of a Novel In Vitro Assay (ALS Assay) for Evaluation of Vaccine-Induced Antibody Secretion from Circulating Mucosal Lymphocytes. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2001;8:482-8.
100. Han WK, Kyung HK, JiHye K, et al. A high throughput serum bactericidal assay for antibodies to Haemophilusinfluenzae type b. BMC Infect Dis. 2016;16:473.
101. ECVAM, ESAC Statement on the Validity of a Serological Method (ELISA) for the Batch Potency Testing of Inactivated Swine Erysipelas Vaccines. 2002.
102. Rosskopf SU, Johannes S, Wilhelm M, et al. Quality control of inactivated erysipelas vaccines: Results of an international collaborative study to establish a new regulatory test. Vaccine. 2000;19:1477-83.
103. ECVAM, ESAC Statement on the Relevance of the Target Animal Safety Test for Batch Safety Testing of Vaccines for Veterinary Use. 2002.
104. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products. Part 113-Standard Requirements. Section 113.209.SAM 308: Supplemental Assay Method for Potency Testing of Inactivated Rabies Vaccines in Mice Using the National Institutes of Health Test. 2007.
105. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2010:0451. Rabies Vaccine (Inactivated) for Veterinary Use. 7th ed. Strasbourg, France:European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2010.
106. Wunderli PS, Dreesen DW, Miller TJ, et al. The rabies peripheral challenge test: more accurate determination of vaccine potency. Vaccine. 2006;24:7115-23.
107. Srinivas G. Refinement alternatives for veterinary vaccine potency testing: overview of currently approved serological methods. Presented at: International Workshop on Alternative Methods to Reduce, Refine, and Replace the Use of Animals in Vaccine Potency and Safety Testing: State of the Science and Future Directions. NICEAM. Bethesda. 2010.
108. Johannes S, Hartinger J, Hendriksen CFM, et al. Humane endpoints in the efficacy testing of swine erysipelas vaccines. ALTEX. 2003;20:11-15.
109. United States Department of Agriculture. Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products, Part 113-Standard Requirements, Section 113.67. Erysipelothrix Rhusiopathiae Vaccine.
110. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products, Part 113-Standard Requirements, Section 113.326. Avian Pox Vaccineccine.
111. Kramer B, Bruckner L, Daas A, et al. Collaborative study for validation of a serological potency assay for rabies vaccine (inactivated) for veterinary use. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2010;37-55.
112. Kramer B, Schildger H, Behrensdorf-Nicol HA, et al. The rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test is a suitable method for batch potency testing of inactivated rabies vaccines. Biologicals. 2009;37:119-26.
113. Nagarajan T, Reddy GS, Mohana Subramanian B, et al. A simple immuno-capture ELISA to estimate rabies viral glycoprotein antigen in vaccine manufacture. Biologicals. 2006;34:21-7.
114. Rosskopf-Streicher U, Johannes S, Wilhelm M, et al. Quality control of inactivated erysipelas vaccines: results of an international collaborative study to establish a new regulatory test. Vaccine. 2001;19:1477-83.
115. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113-Standard Requirements.Section 113. SAM 613: Supplemental Assay Method for In vitro Potency Testing of Erysipelothrixrhusiopathiae Bacterins. 2009.
116. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2010:0362. Clostridium novyi (type B) vaccine for veterinary use. 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2010.
117. EDQM. Alternative potency testing and other possible related quality issues for veterinary clostridial vaccines. Pharmeuropa, Special Issue, Bio 97-1. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines. 1997.
118. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2008:0364. Clostridium septicum vaccine for veterinary use. 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
119. Rosskopf-Streicher U, Volkers P, Noeske K, et al. Quality assurance of C. perfringens epsilon toxoid vaccines- ELISA versus mouse neutralisation test. Alternativenzu Tierexperimenten. 2004;21:65-9.
120. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, SAM 217: Supplemental Assay Method for Potency Testing Tetanus Toxoid by ELISA. 2009.
121. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2008:0697. Tetanus Vaccine for Veterinary Use. 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
122. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2008:0447. Canine Leptospirosis vaccine (inactivated). 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
123. United States Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics Testing Protocol. Supplemental Assay Method for In vitro Potency Testing of Leptospira interrogans serogroup canicola Bacterins. 2017;1-11.
124. United States Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics Testing Protocol. Supplemental Assay Method for In vitro Potency Testing of Leptospira kirschneri serogroup grippotyphosa Bacterins. 2017;1-11.
125. United States Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics Testing Protocol. Supplemental Assay Method for In vitro Potency Testing of Leptospira interrogans serogroup pomona Bacterins. 2017;1-11.
126. United States Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics Testing Protocol. Supplemental Assay Method for In vitro Potency Testing of Leptospira interrogans serogroup icterohaemorrhagiae Bacterins. 2017;1-10.
127. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2008:1939. Bovine leptospirosis vaccine (inactivated). 6th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2008.
128. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113-Standard Requirements.Section 113.209. SAM 308: Supplemental Assay Method for Potency Testing of Inactivated Rabies Vaccines in Mice Using the National Institutes of Health Test. 2007.
129. Bruckner L, Cussler K, Halder M, et al. Three Rs approaches in the quality control of inactivated rabies vaccines. The reportand recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 48. ALTA. 2003;31:429-54.
130. Correa de Moura W, Pinheiro de Araujo H, Cabello P. Potency evaluation of rabies vaccine for human use: the impact of the reduction in the number of animals per dilution. Journal of Virological Methods. 2009;158:84-92.
131. United States Department of Agriculture Center for Veterinary Biologics Testing Protocol. Supplemental Assay Method for Potency Testing of Inactivated Rabies Vaccine in Mice Using the National Institutes of Health Test. 2015;1-12.
132. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113-Standard Requirements.Section 113.65. SAM 600: Supplemental Assay Method for Purity, Potency and Dissociation of Brucellabortus Vaccine, Strain l9. 2009.
133. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.67. SAM 612: Supplemental Assay Method for Bacterial Plate Count of Erysipelothrixrhusiopathiae Vaccines. 2007.
134. Section 113.68. SAM 905: Supplemental Assay Method for Test for Potency of Live AvirulentPasteurellahaemolytica Vaccine. 2009.
135. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.71. SAM 319: Supplemental Assay Method for Titration of Chlamydophilafelis(formerly Feline Chlamydia psittaci) in Embryonated Chicken Eggs. 2007.
136. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.314. SAM 306: Supplemental Assay Method for the Titration of Feline Calicivirus in Cell Culture. 2008.
137. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.315. SAM 307: Supplemental Assay Method for the Titration of Feline Rhinotracheitis Virus in Cell Culture. 2008.
138. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.330. SAM 406: Supplemental Assay Method for Titration of Monovalent, Cell Associated Marek’s Disease Vaccines of Serotypes 1, 2 or 3. 2005.
139. European Pharmacopoeia. Monograph 01/2008:0589. Marek’s disease vaccine (live). 7th ed. Strasbourg, France: European Department for the Quality of Medicines within the Council of Europe. 2010.
140. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements. SAM 121: Supplemental Assay Method for Titration of Porcine Rotovirus In Modified Live Vaccines. 2005.
141. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.305. SAM 304: Supplemental Assay Method for Titration of Infectious 31 Richard McFarland et al. / Procedia in Vaccinology 5 (2011) 16 – 32 31 Richard McFarland et al. / Procediain Vaccinology 5 (2011) 32 Canine Hepatitis Virus in Primary Canine Kidney Cell Culture. 2007.
142. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.306. SAM 323: Supplemental Assay Method for Titration of Canine Distemper Virus in Vero Cell Culture. 2007.
143. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.331. SAM 408: Supplemental Assay Method for Titrating Tissue Culture Adapted Vaccine Strains of Infectious Bursal Disease Virus. 2007.
144. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.304. SAM 305: Supplemental Assay Method for Titration of Feline Panleukopenia Virus in Cell Culture. 2007
145. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.302. SAM 303: Supplemental Assay Method for the Titration of Distemper Virus in Embryonated Chicken Eggs. 2007.
146. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements.Section 113.119. SAM 613: Supplemental Assay Method for InvitroPotency Testing of ErysipelothrixrhusiopathiaeBacterins. 2009.
147. United States Department of Agriculture, Center for Veterinary Biologics, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Animals and Animal Products.Part 113- Standard Requirements. SAM 120: Supplemental Assay Method for the in vitroPotency Assay of Bovine Respiratory Viruses in Killed Vaccines. 1991.
148. Hendriksen C. Three Rs achievements in vaccinology. AATEX. 2007;14:575-9.
149. Claassen I, Maas R, Oei H, et al. Validation study to evaluate the reproducibility of a candidate in vitropotency assay of Newcastle disease vaccines and to establish the suitability of a candidate biological reference preparation. Pharmeuropa Bio. 2004;1:1-15.
150. USDA Veterinary Services Memorandum 800. 2012.
151. NICEATM-sponsored workshop on alternatives for botulinum toxin testing. 2006.
152. Vasudevan. Potency determination of inactivated H7 influenza vaccines using monoclonal antibody-based ELISA and biolayer interferometry assays.Influenza Other Respi Viruses. 2017;1–9.
153. Forte J. In Dev R Receives NIH Support for VaxArray® Pandemic Influenza Vaccine Potency Test. 2017.