ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2017
Safety testing of acellular pertussis vaccines: Use of animals and 3Rs alternatives.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety assessments of recombinant DTaP vaccines developed in South Korea.Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2024Article
- Review
- iGIST-A Kinetic Bioassay for Pertussis Toxin Based on Its Effect on Inhibitory GPCR Signaling.ACS sensors · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current test of acellular Bordetella pertussis (aP) vaccines for residual pertussis toxin (PTx) is the Histamine Sensitization test (HIST), based on the empirical finding that PTx sensitizes mice to histamine. Although HIST has ensured the safety of aP vaccines for years, it is criticized for the limited understanding of how it works, its technical difficulty, and for animal welfare reasons. To estimate the number of mice used worldwide for HIST, we surveyed major aP manufacturers and organizations performing, requiring, or recommending the test. The survey revealed marked regional differences in regulatory guidelines, including the number of animals used for a single test. Based on information provided by the parties surveyed, we estimated the worldwide number of mice used for testing to be 65,000 per year: ∼48,000 by manufacturers and ∼17,000 by national control laboratories, although the latter number is more affected by uncertainty, due to confidentiality policies. These animals covered the release of approximately 850 final lots and 250 in-process lots of aP vaccines yearly. Although there are several approaches for HIST refinement and reduction, we discuss why the efforts needed for validation and implementation of these interim alternatives may not be worthwhile, when there are several in vitro alternatives in various stages of development, some already fairly advanced. Upon implementation, one or more of these replacement alternatives can substantially reduce the number of animals currently used for the HIST, although careful evaluation of each alternative's mechanism and its suitable validation will be necessary in the path to implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.