Biologics Consulting Group Inc.

Bethesda, MD, United States

Biologics Consulting Group Inc.

Bethesda, MD, United States
Time filter
Source Type

Baylor N.W.,Biologics Consulting Group Inc.
International Journal of Health Governance | Year: 2017

Purpose - Before vaccines are marketed and used, they must be evaluated and approved by a national regulatory authority (NRA). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the NRA in the USA responsible for overseeing and regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of vaccines. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach - Expert review. Findings - Developed countries have established governmental regulatory agencies to review and determine the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to ensure that the manufacture, sale, and use of vaccines are adequately regulated. However, even today, many developing countries do not have established NRAs. Furthermore, despite similarities, there are still substantial differences in how regulatory authorities in different countries perform minimum functions required for effective regulation of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines. The World Health Organization (WHO), although not a governmental NRA, uses a consultative approach involving its Expert Committee on Biological Standardization and Biologicals Unit to develop regulatory criteria and identify and consolidate current consensus opinions on key regulatory issues. It is through this approach that WHO informs NRAs on the necessary scientific background required to assess and advise on optimal regulatory approaches and methodologies. This paper will focus on the evolution of the US FDA and its role in regulation of vaccines to illustrate the function of a vaccine NRA. Originality/value - Vaccines are an important resource for protecting people and communities from the mortality and morbidity associated with many infectious diseases. The assessment, licensure, control and surveillance of vaccines are the responsibilities of government regulatory authorities. © Emerald Publishing Limited.

Su J.,Shanghai JiaoTong University | Mazzeo J.,Waters Corporation | Subbarao N.,Biologics Consulting Group Inc. | Jin T.,Shanghai JiaoTong University
Therapeutic Delivery | Year: 2011

The 46th Arden Conference, held in West Point, NY, USA, March 2011, focused on development of protein therapeutics, comprising preformulation, formulation, manufacturing, advanced delivery systems, protein characterization/analysis, and regulatory landscape. The sessions of preformulation and formulation development consisted of nine lectures discussing protein stability implications and characterization during purification, freeze-drying and manufacturing. The session on advanced drug delivery encompassed two new sustained-release microsphere formulations (protein microencapsulation by annealing of premade porous PLGA microspheres and aqueous-aqueous emulsion for preformulating proteins to solvent-resistant particles), two transdermal insulins (patching after thermal ablation of skin and phase-transition hydrogel microneedle patch), and a responsible hydrogel system for intra-ear delivery. The sessions on analytical technologies and regulatory landscape both focused on challenges for biosimilars. © 2011 Future Science Ltd.

Duintjer Tebbens R.J.,Kid Risk Inc. | Pallansch M.A.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Chumakov K.M.,U.S. Food and Drug Administration | Hovi T.,Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare | And 10 more authors.
Risk Analysis | Year: 2013

With the intensifying global efforts to eradicate wild polioviruses, policymakers face complex decisions related to achieving eradication and managing posteradication risks. These decisions and the expanding use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) trigger renewed interest in poliovirus immunity, particularly the role of mucosal immunity in the transmission of polioviruses. Sustained high population immunity to poliovirus transmission represents a key prerequisite to eradication, but poliovirus immunity and transmission remain poorly understood despite decades of studies. In April 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened an international group of experts on poliovirus immunology and virology to review the literature relevant for modeling poliovirus transmission, develop a consensus about related uncertainties, and identify research needs. This article synthesizes the quantitative assessments and research needs identified during the process. Limitations in the evidence from oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) challenge studies and other relevant data led to differences in expert assessments, indicating the need for additional data, particularly in several priority areas for research: (1) the ability of IPV-induced immunity to prevent or reduce excretion and affect transmission, (2) the impact of waning immunity on the probability and extent of poliovirus excretion, (3) the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness to others in different settings, and (4) the relative role of fecal-oral versus oropharyngeal transmission. This assessment of current knowledge supports the immediate conduct of additional studies to address the gaps. © 2013 Society for Risk Analysis.

Duintjer Tebbens R.J.,Kid Risk Inc. | Pallansch M.A.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Chumakov K.M.,U.S. Food and Drug Administration | Hovi T.,Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare | And 9 more authors.
Risk Analysis | Year: 2013

Successfully managing risks to achieve wild polioviruses (WPVs) eradication and address the complexities of oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) cessation to stop all cases of paralytic poliomyelitis depends strongly on our collective understanding of poliovirus immunity and transmission. With increased shifting from OPV to inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), numerous risk management choices motivate the need to understand the tradeoffs and uncertainties and to develop models to help inform decisions. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hosted a meeting of international experts in April 2010 to review the available literature relevant to poliovirus immunity and transmission. This expert review evaluates 66 OPV challenge studies and other evidence to support the development of quantitative models of poliovirus transmission and potential outbreaks. This review focuses on characterization of immunity as a function of exposure history in terms of susceptibility to excretion, duration of excretion, and concentration of excreted virus. We also discuss the evidence of waning of host immunity to poliovirus transmission, the relationship between the concentration of poliovirus excreted and infectiousness, the importance of different transmission routes, and the differences in transmissibility between OPV and WPV. We discuss the limitations of the available evidence for use in polio risk models, and conclude that despite the relatively large number of studies on immunity, very limited data exist to directly support quantification of model inputs related to transmission. Given the limitations in the evidence, we identify the need for expert input to derive quantitative model inputs from the existing data. © 2012 Society for Risk Analysis.

PubMed | Immune Targeting Systems, University of Rochester, Biologics Consulting Group INC, Jill Makin Consulting Ltd and Clinical Research Unit
Type: | Journal: Virology journal | Year: 2015

Human challenge models using respiratory viruses such as influenza are increasingly utilised in the development of novel vaccines and anti-viral modalities and can provide preliminary evidence of protection before evaluation in field trials. We describe the results of a clinical study characterising an A/H1N1 influenza challenge virus in humans.The challenge agent, influenza A/California/2009 (H1N1), was manufactured under cGMP conditions and characterised in accordance with regulatory guidelines. A dose-ascending open-label clinical study was conducted in 29 healthy young adults screened sero-negative to the challenge strain. Subjects were intranasally inoculated with three increasing doses of virus and physician-reported signs, subjected-reported symptoms, viral shedding and immunological responses were monitored.A dose-dependent increase in clinical signs and symptoms was observed with 75% of subjects developing laboratory-confirmed illness at the highest inoculum (3.5 10(6) TCID50). At the highest dose, physician or subject-reported signs of infection were classified as mild (all subjects), moderate (50%) and severe (16%) with peak symptoms recorded four days after infection. Clinical signs were correlated with nasal mucus weight (P<.001) and subject-reported symptoms (P<.001). Geometric mean peak viral shedding was log10 5.16 TCID50 and occurred three days after inoculation with a median duration of five days. The safety profile was such that physiological responses to viral infection were mainly restricted to the upper airways but were not of such severity to be of clinical concern.A highly characterised wild-type Influenza A/California/2009 (H1N1) virus manufactured for clinical use was shown to induce a good infectivity profile in human volunteers. This clinical challenge model can be used for evaluating potential efficacy of vaccines and anti-viral therapeutics.NCT02014870.

Treanor J.J.,University of Rochester | Sahly H.E.,Baylor College of Medicine | King J.,University of Maryland, Baltimore | Graham I.,Washington University in St. Louis | And 4 more authors.
Vaccine | Year: 2011

Background: Development of influenza vaccines that do not use embryonated eggs as the substrate for vaccine production is a high priority. We conducted this study to determine the protective efficacy a recombinant, baculovirus-expressed seasonal trivalent influenza virus hemagglutinin (rHA0) vaccine (FluBlok ®). Methods: Healthy adult subjects at 24 centers across the US were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of saline placebo (2304 subjects), or trivalent FluBlok containing 45 mcg of each rHA0 component (2344 subjects). Serum samples for assessment of immune responses by hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) were taken from a subset of subjects before and 28 days after immunization. Subjects were followed during the 2007-2008 influenza season and combined nasal and throat swabs for virus isolation were obtained from subjects reporting influenza-like illness. Results: Rates of local and systemic side effects were low, and the rates of systemic side effects were similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. HAI antibody responses were seen in 78%, 81%, and 52% of FluBlok recipients to the H1, H3, and B components, respectively. FluBlok was 44.6% (95% CI, 18.8%, 62.6%) effective in preventing culture-confirmed influenza meeting the CDC influenza-like illness case definition despite significant antigenic mismatch between the vaccine antigens and circulating viruses. Conclusions: Trivalent rHA0 vaccine was safe, immunogenic and effective in the prevention of culture confirmed influenza illness, including protection against drift variants. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

PubMed | Protein Sciences Corporation, Yale University, University of Colorado at Denver and Biologics Consulting Group Inc.
Type: Clinical Trial | Journal: Vaccine | Year: 2015

The safety and tolerability of Flublok(), a purified recombinant hemagglutinin seasonal influenza vaccine, was compared to AFLURIA() in a randomized, blinded clinical trial in adults 50 years of age with attention to hypersensitivity reactions.This blinded, randomized trial of healthy adults 50 years of age compared safety of Flublok vs. AFLURIA with respect to pre-specified possible hypersensitivity: rash, urticaria, swelling and non-dependent edema; solicited reactogenicity and unsolicited adverse events. Subject-reported outcomes were collected for 30 days after vaccination. All adverse event terms were reviewed by physicians blinded to vaccine group, who added other terms possibly reflecting hypersensitivity. Case records of subjects with possible hypersensitivity were adjudicated by independent experts blinded to treatment assignment to identify likely hypersensitivity reactions. Non-inferiority of the incidence of hypersensitivity in the two vaccine groups was pre-defined as an absolute difference with an upper bound of 2-sided 95% confidence limits 0.015.A total of 2640 subjects were enrolled, evenly split in age cohorts of 50-64 and 65 years. Fifty-two subjects reported at least one term possibly representing hypersensitivity, with a slight imbalance of 31 on Flublok and 21 on AFLURIA. The adjudicators determined that six and four subjects on Flublok and AFLURIA, respectively, likely met clinical criteria for hypersensitivity, yielding a difference in incidence between the two vaccine groups of 0.15% (upper bound of 2-sided 95% CI=0.9%). Reactogenicity and overall adverse event profiles were similar across both vaccines.Flublok was non-inferior to AFLURIA in adults 50 years of age with respect to expert-adjudicated events of likely hypersensitivity during 30 days following vaccination (Sponsored by Protein Sciences Corporation; number NCT01825200).

Clark J.A.,United Biosource Corporation | Humphries J.E.,Biologics Consulting Group Inc. | Crean S.,United Biosource Corporation | Reynolds M.W.,United Biosource Corporation
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety | Year: 2010

Purpose: To review topical bovine thrombin spontaneous adverse event (AE) reports that were forwarded to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) between January 1986 and December 2006. Methods: Forty-one spontaneous AE reports were summarized for reported AE profile and chronological reporting patterns. Each AE report was adjudicated by a hematologist for the topical bovine thrombin product that was given and the AE(s) that were reported. AEs were grouped as allergic, coagulopathy/bleeding, and all other AEs combined. Grouped AE serial analyses were carried out using successive 3-year time increments between 1986 (the year an AE report was first noted for a bovine thrombin product) and 2006 (the first full year that was available at the time of initiation of the data summary). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measures were every 3-year trend lines for all-AE reports, all reporters, and topical bovine thrombin brand mentions for 2 AE groups of interest (allergic events and coagulopathy/bleeding events). Results: The all-AE spontaneous reporter trend showed a downward appearance for AE reporting activity that started in 1995-1998 and continued through 2004-2006. The all-AE reports trend showed two potential safety signals that could be identified serially: (1) a prominent 1989-1991 peak that was attributable to allergic events (in particular, anaphylaxis), and (2) a small 1995-2000 broad peak that was attributable in part to coagulopathy/bleeding events. Allergic events were predominantly reported with products approved prior to 1995, were not temporally associated with prior medical literature case reports, and continued to be forwarded to the FDA at low levels up to the end of this study in 2006. Coagulopathy/bleeding events were reported only with products approved prior to 1995, were temporally associated with medical literature case reports, and were not forwarded to the FDA after 2000. Conclusions: Overall, spontaneous AE reporting for topical bovine thrombin occurs at very low levels, and appears to have been decreasing since 1995. The serial reporting patterns for topical bovine thrombin are best explained as a strong safety signal for allergic events with ongoing, low level reporting, and a weak safety signal for coagulopathy/bleeding events that ceased on or before 2000. Although this descriptive trend analysis cannot measure associations or causation, the coagulopathy/bleeding signal may have been prompted by multiple, antecedent published case reports. The subsequent diminishment of signal attributed to thrombin likewise may coincide with lack of such reporting in larger follow-up clinical trials or, alternatively, in the introduction and growing market share of thrombin brands of greater purity. Currently marketed topical bovine thrombin formulations are rarely volunteered as possible causes of adverse events. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Baxter R.,Kaiser Permanente | Patriarca P.A.,Biologics Consulting Group Inc. | Ensor K.,Kaiser Permanente | Izikson R.,Protein Sciences Corporation | And 2 more authors.
Vaccine | Year: 2011

Background: Alternative methods for influenza vaccine production are needed to ensure adequate supplies. Methods: Healthy adults 50-64 years were assigned randomly to receive one intramuscular injection of trivalent recombinant hemagglutinin (rHA) or U.S. licensed trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) containing H1, H3 and B antigens (Ag) derived from 2007 to 2008 influenza virus strains A/Solomon Islands/03/2006 (H1N1), A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2), and B/Malaysia/2506/2004. Each rHA dose contained 45 μg HA/strain of the 2007-2008 FDA-recommended Ag vs. 15 μg/strain for TIV. Antibody (Ab) responses were measured using a hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assay at baseline and 28 days post-vaccination. Respiratory samples for viral culture were collected from subjects with influenza-like illness (ILI) during the 2007-2008 season in the U.S. Results: 601 subjects were enrolled. Vaccines were well tolerated. Seroconversion (the percentage of subjects with either (a) a pre-vaccination HAI titer ≤10 and a post-vaccination HAI titer ≥40 or (b) a pre-vaccination titer ≥10 and a minimum four-fold rise in post-vaccination HAI antibody titer) in the TIV and rHA groups, respectively, was obtained in 66% vs. 72% for H1; 44% vs. 61% for H3; and 41% vs. 41% for B. Proportions achieving titers ≥40 were 96% vs. 96% for H1, 75% vs. 85% for H3, and 94% vs. 93% vs. B. Geometric mean titer ratios at day 28 (TIV/rHA) were 0.77 for H1; 0.58 for H3; and 1.05 for B, respectively. ILI frequencies were low and similar in both groups. Conclusions: Both vaccines were safe and immunogenic. Ab responses vs. H1 and H3 Ags were significantly higher in the rHA group, with similar responses to B. Furthermore, the FluBlok group had a statistically significantly higher seroconversion rate against influenza A/H3N2 compared to the TIV group. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

PubMed | Biologics Consulting Group Inc.
Type: | Journal: Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) | Year: 2016

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.

Loading Biologics Consulting Group Inc. collaborators
Loading Biologics Consulting Group Inc. collaborators