Search

The 17 th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (17 th WRIB) took place in Orlando, FL, USA on 19-23 June 2023. Over 1000 professionals representing pharma/biotech companies, CROs, and multiple regulatory agencies convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 17 th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week to allow an exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis of biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines.Moreover, in-depth workshops on "EU IVDR 2017/746 Implementation and impact for the Global Biomarker Community: How to Comply with these NEW Regulations" and on "US FDA/OSIS Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)" were the special features of the 17 th edition.As in previous years, WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international, industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules as well as gene, cell therapies and vaccines to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance, and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues.This 2023 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2023 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons.This publication (Part 2) covers the recommendations on Biomarkers, IVD/CDx, LBA and Cell-Based Assays. Part 1A (Mass Spectrometry Assays and Regulated Bioanalysis/BMV), P1B (Regulatory Inputs) and Part 3 (Gene Therapy, Cell therapy, Vaccines and Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity) are published in volume 16 of Bioanalysis, issues 9 and 7 (2024), respectively.

The 16 th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (16 th WRIB) took place in Atlanta, GA, USA on September 26-30, 2022. Over 1000 professionals representing pharma/biotech companies, CROs, and multiple regulatory agencies convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 16th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on the ICH M10 BMV final guideline (focused on this guideline training, interpretation, adoption and transition); mass spectrometry innovation (focused on novel technologies, novel modalities, and novel challenges); and flow cytometry bioanalysis (rising of the 3rd most common/important technology in bioanalytical labs) were the special features of the 16 th edition. As in previous years, WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international, industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules as well as gene, cell therapies and vaccines to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance, and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues. This 2022 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2022 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 1A) covers the recommendations on Mass Spectrometry and ICH M10. Part 1B covers the Regulatory Agencies' Inputs on Bioanalysis, Biomarkers, Immunogenicity, Gene & Cell Therapy and Vaccine. Part 2 (LBA, Biomarkers/CDx and Cytometry) and Part 3 (Gene Therapy, Cell therapy, Vaccines and Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity) are published in volume 15 of Bioanalysis, issues 15 and 14 (2023), respectively.

Background: The devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers., Aims and Objectives: To synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study., Methods: This is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English., Exclusion: 1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table., Results: The review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only., Conclusion: The review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas., Tweetable Abstract: To mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized., Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed., Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable., Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated., (© 2022 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

The 15th edition of the Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (15th WRIB) was held on 27 September to 1 October 2021. Even with a last-minute move from in-person to virtual, an overwhelmingly high number of nearly 900 professionals representing pharma and biotech companies, contract research organizations (CROs), and multiple regulatory agencies still eagerly convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 15th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on biomarker assay development and validation (BAV) (focused on clarifying the confusion created by the increased use of the term "Context of Use - COU"); mass spectrometry of proteins (therapeutic, biomarker and transgene); state-of-the-art cytometry innovation and validation; and, critical reagent and positive control generation were the special features of the 15th edition. This 2021 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop, and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2021 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations on TAb/NAb, Viral Vector CDx, Shedding Assays; CRISPR/Cas9 & CAR-T Immunogenicity; PCR & Vaccine Assay Performance; ADA Assay Comparability & Cut Point Appropriateness. Part 1A (Endogenous Compounds, Small Molecules, Complex Methods, Regulated Mass Spec of Large Molecules, Small Molecule, PoC), Part 1B (Regulatory Agencies' Inputs on Bioanalysis, Biomarkers, Immunogenicity, Gene & Cell Therapy and Vaccine) and Part 2 (ISR for Biomarkers, Liquid Biopsies, Spectral Cytometry, Inhalation/Oral & Multispecific Biotherapeutics, Accuracy/LLOQ for Flow Cytometry) are published in volume 14 of Bioanalysis, issues 9 and 10 (2022), respectively.

The 15th edition of the Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (15th WRIB) was held on 27 September to 1 October 2021. Even with a last-minute move from in-person to virtual, an overwhelmingly high number of nearly 900 professionals representing pharma and biotech companies, contract research organizations (CROs), and multiple regulatory agencies still eagerly convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 15th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines. Moreover, in-depth workshops on biomarker assay development and validation (BAV) (focused on clarifying the confusion created by the increased use of the term "Context of Use - COU"); mass spectrometry of proteins (therapeutic, biomarker and transgene); state-of-the-art cytometry innovation and validation; and, critical reagent and positive control generation were the special features of the 15th edition. This 2021 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop, and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2021 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 1A) covers the recommendations on Endogenous Compounds, Small Molecules, Complex Methods, Regulated Mass Spec of Large Molecules, Small Molecule, PoC. Part 1B covers the Regulatory Agencies' Inputs on Bioanalysis, Biomarkers, Immunogenicity, Gene & Cell Therapy and Vaccine. Part 2 (ISR for Biomarkers, Liquid Biopsies, Spectral Cytometry, Inhalation/Oral & Multispecific Biotherapeutics, Accuracy/LLOQ for Flow Cytometry) and Part 3 (TAb/NAb, Viral Vector CDx, Shedding Assays; CRISPR/Cas9 & CAR-T Immunogenicity; PCR & Vaccine Assay Performance; ADA Assay Comparabil ity & Cut Point Appropriateness) are published in volume 14 of Bioanalysis, issues 10 and 11 (2022), respectively.

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of [...]

Background: In the European Union it is mandatory to include paper package leaflets (PPL) with all medicines, including vaccines, to inform the recipient. However, it is difficult to meet the necessity for localized PPLs in each of the 24 official European languages. Replacing PPLs with electronic versions offers many advantages including redistribution across nations, reduced storage space, accessibility by the visually impaired, easily updated information or the addition of video content. We wanted to assess the attitudes of patients (vaccine recipients or their parents) to the potential of replacing PPL with electronic versions., Methods: We surveyed vaccinees or their parents in four European countries-Belgium, Italy, Bulgaria and France-for their actual use of vaccine PPLs and their opinions about switching to an electronic package leaflet. Our survey was conducted online because of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in 2518 responses to a questionnaire targeted at three specific groups with particular information needs: parents of young children, pregnant women and the elderly (≥ 60 years)., Results: Our main findings are that currently vaccine PPLs are rarely used and frequently unavailable for the vaccinee. Across the four countries surveyed 55-82% of vaccinees would accept an electronic version, as did 64% when there was an option to request a printout of the leaflet., Conclusions: We found that switching to electronic versions of vaccine PPLs is an acceptable alternative for the public, potentially increasing the quality and amount of information reaching vaccinees while eliminating some barriers to redistribution of vaccines between countries., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Further to the approval of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine BNT162b2, several severe anaphylaxis cases occured within the first few days of public vaccination. An investigation is taking place to understand the cases and their triggers. The vaccine will be administered to a large number of individuals worldwide and there are raising concerns that severe adverse events might occur. With the current information, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) states its position for the following preliminary recommendations that are to be revised as soon as more data emerge. To minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions in vaccinated individuals, it is urgently required to understand the specific nature of the reported severe allergic reactions, including the background medical history of the individuals affected and the mechanisms involved. To achieve this goal, all clinical and laboratory information should be collected and reported. Mild and moderate allergic patients should not be excluded from the vaccine as this could have a significant impact on reaching the goal of population immunity. Healthcare practitioners vaccinating against COVID-19 are required to be sufficiently prepared to recognize and treat anaphylaxis properly with the ability to administer adrenaline. Further to vaccine administration, a mandatory observation period of at least 15 minutes should be followed for all individuals. The current data have not shown any higher risk for patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or asthma, and this message should be clearly stated by physicians to enable our patients to trust the vaccine. More than 30% of the population suffers from allergic diseases and the benefit of the vaccination clearly outweighs the risk of severe COVID-19 development., (© 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced incidence of many viral and bacterial infections has been reported in children: bronchiolitis, varicella, measles, pertussis, pneumococcal and meningococcal invasive diseases. The purpose of this opinion paper is to discuss various situations that could lead to larger epidemics when the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) imposed by the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic will no longer be necessary. While NPIs limited the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, they also reduced the spread of other pathogens during and after lockdown periods, despite the re-opening of schools since June 2020 in France. This positive collateral effect in the short term is welcome as it prevents additional overload of the healthcare system. The lack of immune stimulation due to the reduced circulation of microbial agents and to the related reduced vaccine uptake induced an "immunity debt" which could have negative consequences when the pandemic is under control and NPIs are lifted. The longer these periods of "viral or bacterial low-exposure" are, the greater the likelihood of future epidemics. This is due to a growing proportion of "susceptible" people and a declined herd immunity in the population. The observed delay in vaccination program without effective catch-up and the decrease in viral and bacterial exposures lead to a rebound risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. With a vaccination schedule that does not include vaccines against rotavirus, varicella, and serogroup B and ACYW Neisseria meningitidis, France could become more vulnerable to some of these rebound effects., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide normative guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations [...]

The 14 th edition of the Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (14 th WRIB) was held virtually on June 15-29, 2020 with an attendance of over 1000 representatives from pharmaceutical/biopharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, contract research organizations, and regulatory agencies worldwide. The 14 th WRIB included three Main Workshops, seven Specialized Workshops that together spanned 11 days in order to allow exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis, biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy and vaccine. Moreover, a comprehensive vaccine assays track; an enhanced cytometry track and updated Industry/Regulators consensus on BMV of biotherapeutics by LCMS were special features in 2020. As in previous years, this year's WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues. This 2020 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the Global Bioanalytical Community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2020 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons. This publication (Part 3) covers the recommendations on Vaccine, Gene/Cell Therapy, NAb Harmonization and Immunogenicity). Part 1 (Innovation in Small Molecules, Hybrid LBA/LCMS & Regulated Bioanalysis), Part 2A (BAV, PK LBA, Flow Cytometry Validation and Cytometry Innovation) and Part 2B (Regulatory Input) are published in volume 13 of Bioanalysis, issues 4 and 5 (2020), respectively.

Immunization is highly effective in preventing infectious diseases and therefore an indispensable public health measure. Allergic patients deserve access to the same publicly recommended immunizations as non-allergic patients unless risks associated with vaccination outweigh the gains. Whereas the number of reported possible allergic reactions to vaccines is high, confirmed vaccine-triggered allergic reactions are rare. Anaphylaxis following vaccination is rare, affecting <1/100 000, but can occur in any patient. Some patient groups, notably those with a previous allergic reaction to a vaccine or its components, are at heightened risk of allergic reaction and require special precautions. Allergic reactions, however, may occur in patients without known risk factors and cannot be predicted by currently available tools. Unwarranted fear and uncertainty can result in incomplete vaccination coverage for children and adults with or without allergy. In addition to concerns about an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself, there is fear that routine childhood immunization may promote the development of allergic sensitization and disease. Thus, although there is no evidence that routine childhood immunization increases the risk of allergy development, such risks need to be discussed., (© 2017 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide normative guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers (1) on vaccines and [...]

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of [...]

Surveillance of meningococcal disease (MD) is crucial after the implementation of vaccination strategies to monitor their impact on disease burden. Adolescent vaccination could provide direct and indirect protection. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile have introduced meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MCV) into their National Immunization Programs (NIP), while Uruguay has not. Here, we analyze the epidemiology of MD and vaccination experience from these four South American countries to identify needs and plans to improve the current vaccination programs. Methodology: Descriptive study of MD incidence rates, serogroup distribution, case fatality rates (CFR), and MCV uptakes during the period 2010–2021 in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. Data were extracted from national surveillance programs, reference laboratories, NIPs, and Pubmed. Results: MD overall incidence from 2010 to 2021 have a decreasing trend in Argentina (0.37 [IQR = 0.20–0.61]), Brazil (0.59 [IQR = 0.54–1.22]), and Chile (0.45 [IQR = 0.40–0.77]), while a significant increase in Uruguay (0.47 [IQR = 0.33–0.69]) was found from 2016 to 2019. During the COVID-19 pandemic, all countries sharply reduced their MD incidence. The highest incidence rates were observed among infants, followed by children 1–4 years of age. No second peak was evident in adolescents. A reduction in serogroup C, W, and Y cases has occurred in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile after introduction of MCV, serogroup B becoming predominant in all four countries. Median CFR was 9.0%, 21%, 19.9%, and 17.9% in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, respectively. Median uptake of MCV for Argentina and Brazil were 66.6% and 91.0% for priming in infants; 54.7% and 84.5% for booster in toddlers; and 47.5% and 53% for adolescents; while for Chile, 95.6% for toddlers. Conclusions: Experience after the implementation of MCV programs in South America was successful, reducing the burden of MD due to the vaccine serogroups. High vaccine uptake and the inclusion of adolescents will be crucial in the post-pandemic period to maintain the protection of the population. The increase in the proportion of serogroup B cases emphasizes the importance of continuous surveillance to guide future vaccination strategies.

While the large majority of parents in the U.S. vaccinate their children according to the recommended immunization schedule, some parents have refused or delayed vaccinating, often citing safety concerns. In response to public concern, the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) evaluated existing research regarding the safety of the recommended immunization schedule. The IOM concluded that although available evidence strongly supported the safety of the currently recommended schedule as a whole, additional observational research was warranted to compare health outcomes between fully vaccinated children and those on a delayed or alternative schedule. In addition, the IOM identified the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) as an important resource for conducting this research. Guided by the IOM findings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) commissioned a White Paper to assess how the VSD could be used to study the safety of the childhood immunization schedule. Guided by subject matter expert engagement, the resulting White Paper outlines a 4 stage approach for identifying exposure groups of undervaccinated children, presents a list of health outcomes of highest priority to examine in this context, and describes various study designs and statistical methods that could be used to analyze the safety of the schedule. While it appears feasible to study the safety of the recommended immunization schedule in settings such as the VSD, these studies will be inherently complex, and as with all observational studies, will need to carefully address issues of confounding and bias. In light of these considerations, decisions about conducting studies of the safety of the schedule will also need to assess epidemiological evidence of potential adverse events that could be related to the schedule, the biological plausibility of an association between an adverse event and the schedule, and public concern about the safety of the schedule., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction In accordance with the WHO's mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, the organization regularly issues position papers on vaccination, particularly when they relate to [...]

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of [...]

Vaccines currently recommended for adolescents by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices have the potential to improve the health of youth by preventing conditions such as: tetanus, pertussis, meningococcal disease, influenza, and genital warts, as well as later adult outcomes such as cervical and other human papillomavirus-related cancers. Adolescent vaccine coverage lags behind that for younger age groups. A requirement to obtain parental consent for vaccination can present a significant barrier to improving adolescent vaccine uptake across all health care settings in which adolescents access care. The ability of minors to consent to vaccination can influence whether adolescents receive indicated vaccines during adolescent health care visits when parents are absent and when adolescents are seen for confidential services. State laws govern consent for the delivery of health care to minors. All states have some laws that allow minors to consent to health care based either on their status or on the services they are seeking. Some of these laws would allow them to consent to vaccination. It is the Position of the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine that, within ethical and legal guidelines, it will be important to develop strategies that maximize opportunities for minors to receive vaccinations when parents are not physically present, including opportunities for them to give their own consent., (Copyright © 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Adverse event following immunization (AEFI) is a critical component of immunization program. The risk of AEFI with vaccination is always weighed against the risk of not immunizing a child. There is an evolving AEFI surveillance system in India for the vaccines delivered through universal immunization program (UIP) of government sector, but the reporting remained suboptimal for long in the country, and there is almost no participation from private sector. The AEFI reporting from private sector will provide vital information on the safety of new and underutilized vaccines, not part of the UIP in India. The national guidelines are recently revised and updated. The Indian Academy of Pediatrics believes that pediatricians, especially in private sector have a crucial role to play with reporting of AEFI with newer/underutilized vaccines. Programmatic error, vaccine reaction, injection reactions, coincidental and unknown are the five broad categories of AEFI for programmatic purposes. The serious AEFIs (death, disability, cluster and hospitalization) need to be reported immediately and investigated in detail as per the laid down procedures. Once a serious AEFI happens, primary or urban health centre should be immediately informed by the pediatricians practicing in rural or urban areas, respectively. This advocacy paper from the academy provides guidelines to practitioners on how to report cases, and suggests ways for IAP members to help in ongoing efforts of the government in improving AEFI surveillance in the country. The details about the diagnosis and management of known/expected AEFI with UIP and newer vaccines shall be published later.

In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO regularly issues position papers on vaccines against diseases that have an international public health [...]

Globally, there were an estimated 9.8 million measles cases and 207 500 measles deaths in 2019. As the effort to eliminate measles around the world continues, modeling remains a valuable tool for public health decision-makers and program implementers. This study presents a novel approach to the use of a yearly transition function that formulates mathematically the vaccine schedules for different age groups while accounting for the effects of the age of vaccination, the timing of vaccination, and disease seasonality on the yearly number of measles cases in a country. The methodology presented adds to an existing modeling framework and expands its analysis, making its utilization more adjustable for the user and contributing to its conceptual clarity. This article also adjusts for the temporal interaction between vaccination and exposure to disease, applying adjustments to estimated yearly counts of cases and the number of vaccines administered that increase population immunity. These new model features provide the ability to forecast and compare the effects of different vaccination timing scenarios and seasonality of transmission on the expected disease incidence. Although the work presented is applied to the example of measles, it has potential relevance to modeling other vaccine-preventable diseases., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Recent studies have been analyzing and measuring the efficacy of the use of financial incentives to increase the Covid-19 vaccine uptake. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the only study available in the literature that aims to measure the effect of financial incentives on vaccine rates among children. This paper explores the effects of a specific financial incentive on parents' vaccination decisions for their children. Using data from a regional practice, where students aged 12 and older received $50 gift cards per Covid-19 vaccination dose, we use various methodologies (synthetic control, linear regression, and difference-in-differences) to approximate the effects of financial incentives on vaccine rates. Our analysis reveals that gift cards increase vaccination rates by 2.64-4.23 percentage points from a baseline rate of 38 percent, concluding that financial incentives, in conjunction with other incentives and policies, can be considered to increase the rate of vaccines for 12- to 17-year-olds., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The World Health Organization and various allergy, asthma, and immunology societies throughout the world met on January 27 through 29, 1997, in Geneva, Switzerland to write guidelines for allergen immunotherapy. Over the ensuing year, the editors and panel members reached a consensus about the information to include in the WHO position paper "Allergen immunotherapy: Therapeutic vaccines for allergic diseases." The historical term allergen extract was changed to allergen vaccine to reflect the fact that allergen vaccines are used in medicine as immune modifiers. The document summarizes the scientific literature and rationale for the appropriate use of such therapy to treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic asthma, and Hymenoptera hypersensitivity. It also includes recommendations to improve safety, discusses new techniques being developed that may result in better efficacy and less risk, and offers recommendations for areas of additional and necessary research.

In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of vaccines [...]

Currently available vaccines are safe, but, potentially, any vaccine can cause an allergic reaction and, albeit very rare, anaphylaxis can occur. Although its rarity, the precise diagnostic management of a suspected anaphylaxis postvaccination is of paramount importance due to the risk of a potentially serious reaction after re-exposure, while a misdiagnosis might lead to an increase in the number of children that interrupt vaccinations resulting in an unjustifiably individual and collective risk of loss of protection against immune preventable diseases. In the light that most cases of suspected allergy to a vaccine are not effectively confirmed in up to 85% of the cases referred for an allergy evaluation, patients can continue the vaccination schedule with the same formulation and tolerance of the booster doses. The patient assessment has to be done by an expert in the vaccine field, usually an allergist or an immunologist depending on the country, to select subjects at risk of allergic reactions and to perform the correct procedures for vaccine hypersensitivity diagnosis and management, in order to guarantee safe immunization practices. The aim of this review is to provide a practical guidance for the safe management of allergic children undergoing immunization procedures. The guide is referred both to the evaluation of children who have previously experienced a suspected allergic reaction to a specific vaccine and their management in case of further booster doses, and to children allergic to a component of the vaccine to be administered., (© 2023 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Low-vaccination rates worldwide have led to the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable infections, including measles. Immunocompromised patients, including pediatric solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, are at risk for measles because of suboptimal vaccination, reduced or waning vaccine immunity, lifelong immunosuppression, and global re-emergence of measles., Objectives: To review published cases of measles in pediatric SOT recipients to heighten awareness of its clinical manifestations, summarize diagnostic and treatment strategies, and identify opportunities to optimize prevention., Methods: We conducted a literature review of published natural measles infections in SOT recipients ≤21 years of age, summarizing management and outcomes. We describe measles epidemiology, recommended diagnostics, treatment, and highlight prevention strategies., Results: There are seven published reports of measles infection in 12 pediatric SOT recipients, the majority of whom were unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated. Subjects had atypical or severe clinical presentations, including lack of rash and complications, most frequently with encephalitis and pneumonitis, resulting in 33% mortality. Updated recommendations on testing and vaccination are provided. Treatment options beyond supportive care and vitamin A are limited, with no approved antivirals., Conclusion: While measles is infrequently reported in pediatric SOT recipients, morbidity and mortality remain significant. A high index of suspicion is warranted in susceptible SOT recipients with clinically compatible illness or exposure. Providers must recognize this risk, educate families, and be aware of both classic and atypical presentations of measles to rapidly identify, isolate, and diagnose measles in pediatric SOT recipients. Continued efforts to optimize measles vaccination both pre- and post-SOT are warranted., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Copyright of Revista Española de Quimioterapia is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction In accordance with its mandate to provide guidance to Member States on health policy matters, WHO issues a series of regularly updated position papers on vaccines and combinations of [...]

Copyright of Revista Española de Quimioterapia is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)