4.1 Review

Vaccine instability in the cold chain: Mechanisms, analysis and formulation strategies

期刊

BIOLOGICALS
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 237-259

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2014.05.007

关键词

Cold chain; Vaccine; Stability; Formulation; Lyophilization; Adjuvant

资金

  1. Temptime Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Instability of vaccines often emerges as a key challenge during clinical development (lab to clinic) as well as commercial distribution (factory to patient). To yield stable, efficacious vaccine dosage forms for human use, successful formulation strategies must address a combination of interrelated topics including stabilization of antigens, selection of appropriate adjuvants, and development of stability-indicating analytical methods. This review covers key concepts in understanding the causes and mechanisms of vaccine instability including (I) the complex and delicate nature of antigen structures (e.g., viruses, proteins, carbohydrates, protein-carbohydrate conjugates, etc.), (2) use of adjuvants to further enhance immune responses, (3) development of physicochemical and biological assays to assess vaccine integrity and potency, and (4) stabilization strategies to protect vaccine antigens and adjuvants (and their interactions) during storage. Despite these challenges, vaccines can usually be sufficiently stabilized for use as medicines through a combination of formulation approaches combined with maintenance of an efficient cold chain (manufacturing, distribution, storage and administration). Several illustrative case studies are described regarding mechanisms of vaccine instability along with formulation approaches for stabilization within the vaccine cold chain. These include live, attenuated (measles, polio) and inactivated (influenza, polio) viral vaccines as well as recombinant protein (hepatitis B) vaccines. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The International Alliance for Biological Standardization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据