WHO Expert Committee On Biological Standardization: WHO Technical Report Series
WHO Expert Committee On Biological Standardization: WHO Technical Report Series
WHO Expert Committee On Biological Standardization: WHO Technical Report Series
1059
The Organization seeks through its publications to support national health strategies
and address the most pressing public health concerns of populations around the world.
To respond to the needs of Member States at all levels of development, WHO publishes
practical manuals, handbooks and training material for specific categories of health
workers; internationally applicable guidelines and standards; reviews and analyses of
health policies, programmes and research; and state-of-the-art consensus reports that
offer technical advice and recommendations for decision-makers. These books are
closely tied to the Organization’s priority activities, encompassing disease prevention
and control, the development of equitable health systems based on primary health
care, and health promotion for individuals and communities. Progress towards better
health for all also demands the global dissemination and exchange of information that
draws on the knowledge and experience of all countries and the collaboration of world
leaders in public health and the biomedical sciences.
The WHO Technical Report Series makes available the findings of various international
groups of experts that provide WHO with the latest scientific and technical advice on
a broad range of medical and public health subjects. Members of such expert groups
serve without remuneration in their personal capacities rather than as representatives
of governments or other bodies; their views do not necessarily reflect the decisions or
the stated policy of WHO.
To purchase WHO publications, please contact: WHO Press, World Health Organization,
20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland; email: [email protected]; order
online: www.who.int/bookorders.
W H O Te c h n i c a l R e p o r t S e r i e s
1 0 5 9
This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and
does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the World Health Organization
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: seventy-ninth report
(WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059)
ISBN 978-92-4-009797-1 (electronic version)
ISBN 978-92-4-009798-8 (print version)
ISSN 0512-3054
iv
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization
Seventy-ninth meeting held virtually 11 to 14 March 2024
Committee members1
Dr S.S. Ben Amor, National Drug Control Laboratory, Tunis, Tunisia
Dr C. Burns, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Professor K. Cichutek, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany (Co-chair)
Dr J.A. Dahlan, Directorate of Standardization of Drugs, Narcotics, Psychotropics, Precursors
and Addictive Substances, Jakarta, Indonesia
Dr S. Fakhrzadeh, Consultant, Tehran, Iran (Islamic Republic of )
Dr I. Feavers, Consultant, Nacton, United Kingdom (Rapporteur)
Professor S. Hindawi, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Co-chair)
Professor M.B.C. Koh, St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, United Kingdom; and
Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore
Dr Q. Meyer, South African National Control Laboratory for Biological Products,
Bloemfontein, South Africa
Dr A. Ramkishan, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad, India
Dr S. Silveira, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Brasilia, Brazil
Dr J. Southern, Representative of the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority,
Simon’s Town, South Africa
Professor C.T. Tagny,2 University of Yaoundé; and University Teaching Hospital Yaoundé,
Yaoundé, Cameroon
Dr D. Teo, Visiting Consultant, Blood Services Group, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore,
Singapore (Co-rapporteur)
Dr J. Wang, National Institutes for Food and Drug Control, Beijing, China
Dr S. Wendel, Hospital Sirio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
Dr T. Wisit, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
Dr T. Wu, Biologic and Radiopharmaceutical Drugs Directorate, Health Canada, Ottawa,
Canada
1
The decisions of the Committee were taken in closed session with only members of the Committee and
WHO Secretariat present. Each Committee member had completed a Declaration of Interests form prior to
the meeting. These were assessed by the WHO Secretariat and no declared interests were considered to be
in conflict with full meeting participation.
2
Unable to attend.
v
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Temporary advisors
Dr M.H. Aldosari, Saudi Food and Drug Authority, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Dr A. Bisht, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Noida, India
Dr P. Boonprasirt, Food and Drug Administration, Nonthaburi, Thailand
Dr M. Buda, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare, Strasbourg,
France
Dr A. Chia, Health Sciences Authority, Singapore, Singapore
Dr A. Fouad, Egyptian Drug Authority, Cairo, Egypt
Dr E. Griffiths, Consultant, Kingston upon Thames, United Kingdom
Dr Md. Harun-Or-Rashid, Directorate General of Drug Administration, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Dr A. Korovkin, Ministry of Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
Dr J. Lacroix, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada
Dr M. Li, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
Dr L. Mallet, European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & Healthcare, Strasbourg,
France
Dr P. Minor, Consultant, St Albans, United Kingdom
Dr G.I. Parra, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration,
Silver Spring, MD, United States of America (USA)
Dr M. Powell, Health Products Regulatory Authority, Dublin, Ireland
Dr K. Quillen, Atrius Health, Boston, MA, USA
Dr Y. Sohn, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Dr P. Stickings, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
State actors
Dr N. Almond, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr M. Bailey, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
vi
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization
Dr E. Bentley, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr B. Cowper, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Ms T. Desai, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr K. Dix, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr A. Eder, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration,
Silver Spring, MD, USA
Dr O. Engelhardt, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar,
United Kingdom
Ms L. Hassall, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr K. Ishii, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan
Dr A. Ishii-Watabe, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kawasaki, Japan
Dr A. Khan, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Dr D. Khokal, Consultant, Singapore, Singapore
Dr G. Mattiuzzo, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar,
United Kingdom
Dr F. Mawas, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr M. Moore, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Ms C. Morris, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr M. Nübling, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany
Dr M. Ochiai, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Tokyo, Japan
Ms K. Partridge, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar,
United Kingdom
Mr G. Prescott, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
Dr G. Raychaudhuri, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug
Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Dr N. Rose, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, United
Kingdom
vii
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
WHO Secretariat
Technical Standards and Specifications (MHP/HPS/TSS)
Dr I. Knezevic (Secretary to the Committee; Lead for the vaccines and biotherapeutics track)
Dr Y. Maryuningsih (Lead for the blood products and in vitro diagnostics track)
Mr S. Chatzixiros
Ms S. Jenner
Dr E. Kim
Dr D. Lei
Dr T. Zhou
3
Unable to attend: WHO Regional Office for Africa; WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; and WHO
Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean.
ix
Abbreviations
ADCC antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity
AG-BRAS Advisory Group on Blood Regulation, Availability and Safety
BET bacterial endotoxin test
CEA carcinoembryonic antigen
CEACAM carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule
CEPI Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019
DNA deoxyribonucleic acid
EDQM European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines &
HealthCare
ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
GAS group A streptococcus
GBS group B streptococcus
GMP good manufacturing practice(s)
HIV human immunodeficiency virus
HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography
HTS high-throughput sequencing
IFU instructions for use
IL-2 interleukin-2
IU International Unit(s)
JUNV Junin virus
LASV Lassa virus
Lf limit of flocculation
mAb monoclonal antibody
MAT monocyte activation test
NAT nucleic acid amplification technique
NC3Rs National Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and
Refinement of Animals in Research
xi
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
xii
1. Introduction
The seventy-ninth meeting of the WHO Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization was held virtually from 11 to 14 March 2024. The meeting was
opened on behalf of the Director-General of WHO by Dr Yukiko Nakatani,
Assistant Director-General, Access to Medicines and Health Products. Dr
Nakatani began by welcoming participants and thanking them for devoting their
time and expertise to the work of the Committee.
Dr Nakatani noted that the 18 members of the Committee represented
a good balance of expertise, regional representation and gender, and went on to
explain the ongoing efforts being made to broaden even further the expertise
and global representativeness of the WHO Expert Advisory Panel on Biological
Standardization from which Committee members were drawn.
Dr Nakatani then provided a brief update on WHO activities to ensure
broader access to medicines and health products, highlighting the WHO support
being provided in 120 countries to advance the goal of universal health coverage.
This support included the WHO prequalification of vaccines, diagnostics and other
biological products to promote more equitable access to such products worldwide.
In addition, several medicines had now been added to the WHO Model List of
Essential Medicines (EML), including new products for treating multiple sclerosis,
cancer and cardiovascular conditions. With ongoing support from the WHO
regulatory systems strengthening programme, a number of key improvements had
also been made to the national regulatory systems in several countries.
Dr Nakatani went on to note a statement that had been made on behalf of
the WHO African Region by Senegal at the recent Executive Board meeting (see
section 2.3.1 below) and highlighted the significance of this to the work of the
Committee. In addition, following the adoption of resolution WHA67.21 in 2014
on access to biotherapeutic products, WHO had continued to develop important
standards and tools to facilitate access to biosimilar products of assured quality,
safety and efficacy.
Dr Nakatani concluded by commenting on the ambitious agenda
of the current meeting, noting in particular the proposed addendum to the
WHO Guidelines on the nonclinical and clinical evaluation of monoclonal
antibodies and related products intended for the prevention or treatment of
infectious diseases. This addendum would provide guidance specifically on the
evaluation of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for use against coronavirus disease
2019 (COVID-19). Dr Nakatani also noted the proposed updating of the 2011
WHO guidelines on good manufacturing practices for blood establishments. In
these and other important areas, the expertise of the Committee will be key to
informing the provision of WHO support to countries and strengthening the
global health leadership provided by WHO.
1
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
2
2. General
2.1 Strategic directions in biological standardization
2.1.1 Update on recent and planned WHO written
standards for biological products
Dr Knezevic summarized the WHO written standards for biological products
recently adopted on the advice of the Committee, and provided an overview
of the plans for new and revised such documents from 2024 onwards. The
adoption of the following four documents between 2020 and 2023 had been of
particular relevance during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) the WHO Guidelines
on the quality, safety and efficacy of plasmid DNA vaccines; (b) Evaluation of
the quality, safety and efficacy of messenger RNA vaccines for the prevention of
infectious diseases: regulatory considerations; (c) the WHO Guidelines for the
production and quality control of monoclonal antibodies and related products
intended for medicinal use; and (d) the WHO Guidelines on the nonclinical and
clinical evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and related products intended for
the prevention or treatment of infectious diseases. Subject to the advice of the
Committee, the latter document will be supplemented by a series of addenda
covering considerations specific to mAbs against COVID-19, respiratory syncytial
virus (RSV) disease, rabies, malaria and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Following the 2022 adoption of the WHO manual for the preparation
of reference standards for use as secondary standards in antibody testing, with
its focus on antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus
2 (SARS-CoV-2), an implementation workshop had been held in November
2023. The report of the workshop had been published on the WHO website and
provided to the Committee. In addition, the WHO Guidelines on regulatory
preparedness for the oversight of pandemic or other emergency use vaccines in
importing countries had been adopted in 2023.
With regard to upcoming WHO written standards, Dr Knezevic
indicated that revised WHO Guidelines on rotavirus vaccines would be proposed
for adoption at the next meeting of the Committee in October 2024, with an
update on progress made to date scheduled for the current meeting (see section
3.4.1 below). It was further anticipated that revised WHO Guidelines on post-
approval changes for vaccines would be presented to the Committee in October
2025, and revised WHO Recommendations for the preparation, characterization
and establishment of international and other biological reference standards in
2025 or 2026. The revision of several other WHO written standards for vaccines
was expected to commence in 2026, and would include written standards on
yellow fever virus, dengue, measles, mumps and rubella, bacille Calmette-Guérin
and malaria vaccines, as well as more general WHO Guidelines on vaccine lot
release. In addition, and guided by the advice of the WHO Product Development
3
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
for Vaccines Advisory Committee (PDVAC) (see section 2.2.1 below) and by
stakeholder requests, the development of new WHO written standards on
chikungunya, paratyphoid, shigella and group B streptococcus (GBS) vaccines
was anticipated, along with WHO guidance on the evaluation of vaccines and
other biological products using high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies.
Dr Knezevic concluded by noting the completion in 2023 of the
independent, systematic review of WHO written standards by the National
Centre for the Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of Animals in Research
(NC3Rs) in the United Kingdom. During discussion of the full report of this
review, the Committee had recommended the establishment of a working group
to build on its findings and to help develop science-based guidance encouraging
the replacement of animal testing with non-animal testing for the quality control
of vaccines and biotherapeutic products. The recently formed working group was
expected to present such guidance for consideration by the Committee by 2026.
and related products regardless of the target pathogen or toxin. During the
adoption of these Guidelines, the Committee had recognized the need to also
develop a number of addenda on disease-specific regulatory considerations.
The Committee was provided with an overview of the development
and structure of a proposed addendum setting out a number of supplementary
considerations when evaluating the safety and efficacy of mAb products specifically
intended for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Following two rounds
of public consultation and subsequent revisions, the proposed addendum now
consisted of seven sections ranging from general considerations to more detailed
guidance on nonclinical and clinical evaluation. The Committee was reminded
that separate detailed guidance on the production and quality control of mAbs
was provided in the previously adopted WHO Guidelines for the production
and quality control of monoclonal antibodies and related products intended for
medicinal use.
The Committee sought clarification on a number of issues, including
on the guidance provided on the degree to which nonclinical and clinical data
obtained for specific mAb formats or for specific variants of concern could be
applied to other comparable mAb products. The Committee indicated that any
new mAb format or mAb targeting a newly emerging variant of concern should
be assessed as a new product, including in terms of their ability to neutralize the
target variant. Assurance was provided to the Committee that clear guidance on
these and related issues was provided in the parent Guidelines and the addendum
when these were read in conjunction.
The Committee also highlighted two issues with the proposed section
on international reference materials. While noting that such a section might
helpfully be included in all relevant WHO Recommendations, Guidelines and
guidance documents to promote the use of WHO measurement standards, the
Committee was concerned that the section would become out of date once
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
the cited standards were replaced or new variants emerged. Furthermore, the
international reference materials in question were based on antisera, and
although likely to be of utility, there was currently no evidence to support their
use in evaluating mAbs. In light of these comments, it was agreed that the text
would be modified to ensure that users check for the most up-to-date reference
materials, and that more cautionary language would be used regarding the use of
current international reference materials to characterize SARS-CoV-2 mAbs.
Despite a current lack of licensed products intended to be inhaled or
administered intranasally, the Committee noted that prospective such mAb
products against respiratory pathogens may be developed. The Committee agreed
that such products would require a number of specific additional pharmacokinetic
and pharmacodynamic considerations compared to parenterally administered
mAbs, including considerations arising from the potential use of a delivery device.
8
International Recommendations, Guidelines and other matters
Appropriate text was therefore added to the nonclinical and clinical sections of
the addendum to address this issue. The Committee also suggested that although
all currently approved neutralizing mAbs target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein,
the text be broadened to include mAbs targeting other antigens that may be in
development. In addition, the Committee suggested some clarification of the
guidance be provided on the use of available safety data to support the inclusion
of pregnant women in clinical studies.
After due consideration of these and other minor modifications made to
the text, the Committee recommended that document WHO/BS/2024.2466 be
adopted and annexed to its report (Annex 2).
was anticipated that the document would be submitted to the Committee for its
review at its next meeting in October 2024.
While reflecting on the potential advantages of vaccines over mAbs for
the prevention of RSV disease, the Committee also felt that access to both types
of products would be desirable at present, and that the addendum would be a
very important document in this context. The Committee looked forward to
seeing the resulting document in due course.
the revised document, and of the rationale and justification for its development.
The proposed revised document would set out the international principles and
standards of GMP for blood establishments and hospital blood banks that should
be implemented and enforced by the national regulatory authority (NRA) to
ensure the quality and safety of blood components for transfusion and as starting
material for further industrial manufacturing. The revised document would
also be aligned with existing international documents in the field to facilitate
harmonization in the global manufacturing and use of plasma products.
The Committee was informed that an expert working group comprising
AG-BRAS members had been established and was being supported by the WHO
Blood and Other Products of Human Origin team, with input from regional
advisers. Following a detailed summary of the structure and contents of the
proposed revised document, an update was provided on the progress made to
10
International Recommendations, Guidelines and other matters
date. It was intended that a complete draft would be available in the first half of
2024 and that following a process of expert comment and public consultation,
the final version would be published in late 2024. Explanation was given that
although WHO planning clearance had been obtained based on developing
a normative and standard-setting publication, the proposal was also being
submitted to the Committee for its consideration as the 2011 WHO Guidelines
had been developed with its involvement and subsequently jointly published by
the WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical Preparations.
The Committee welcomed the efforts made by the working group
and AG-BRAS in revising this important document as this would directly
contribute to the consistent production of safe and quality-assured blood, blood
components and plasma products. Observing that the risks and challenges for
GMP implementation had also changed over the years, the Committee noted
that quality standards in hospital blood banks were often suboptimal, with
unsatisfactory clinical transfusion practices in many resource-limited countries.
Reflecting on how GMP and quality management concepts could best be
implemented in these areas, the Committee noted that GMP would only apply
to that which is necessary to maintain safety and quality during blood collection,
testing, processing, release, and distribution to, and storage in, hospitals. This
would not cover the key areas of clinical blood transfusion practices, which are
instead part of the activities of the hospital quality system. It was acknowledged
that the proposed document would thus cover quality system elements in blood
establishments that also applied to hospital blood banks rather than the full scope
of GMP in the latter setting. The Committee also suggested a number of additional
topics that might usefully be considered in the document, such as donor data
security/confidentiality when data is shared between blood establishments. It
was also recognized that the relationship between the blood establishments and
manufacturers of blood products was an important focus, as it was envisaged that
blood establishments compliant with the revised WHO Guidelines would achieve
a level of quality that would make plasma suitable for further manufacturing,
with manufacturers of plasma-derive medicinal products looking to only source
plasma from such GMP-compliant establishments.
The Committee concluded by discussing the proposed next steps
in developing and publishing the revised document. Given the significant
similarities between the WHO process for developing normative and standard-
setting publications and the Committee process, the parallel publication of the
proposed document appeared to be feasible. Under this parallel approach, the
completed draft would undergo public consultation, followed by presentation of
the final document to the Committee at its next meeting in October 2024. The
final document would also be published on the WHO website to expedite user
access and then independently published in the Technical Report Series, subject
to the recommendations of the Committee.
11
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
13
4. International reference materials – biotherapeutics
other than blood products
4.1 WHO international reference standards for
biotherapeutics other than blood products
4.1.1 First WHO International Standard for golimumab
Golimumab is a human therapeutic mAb originally isolated from a hybridoma
clone generated from transgenic mice immunized with human tumour necrosis
factor (TNF). It is structurally well characterized and binds with high affinity
and specificity to both soluble and transmembrane forms of TNF thereby
neutralizing its biological activity. Golimumab is used in adults as a TNF
antagonist to treat moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis,
ankylosing spondylitis, non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis and moderate-
to-severe ulcerative colitis. It is also used to treat polyarticular juvenile idiopathic
arthritis in children. Variable efficacy among anti-TNF products has highlighted
a potential need for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), which measures the
levels of the therapeutic and of anti-drug antibodies. However, implementation
of this approach has been hampered by a lack of standardization of the analytical
methods used.
In order to develop a prospective reference standard for use in measuring
both the in vitro biological activity of golimumab and golimumab concentrations
in samples from treated patients, two international collaborative studies had been
conducted using a donated drug preparation. This preparation was formulated
similarly to WHO international standards for other TNF mAbs, and filled and
lyophilized in accordance with WHO guidelines.
In the first study, 16 laboratories in 11 countries had assessed the
suitability of the candidate material (NIBSC code 22/116) to standardize cell-
based bioassays and TNF binding assays. Results indicated that the candidate
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
the exception of the buffer used for the second WHO international standard,
this was essentially the formulation that had been used for both of the previous
two WHO international standards, and had proven to be stable. Although the
IL-2 in the preparation would be glycosylated, it had previously been shown
that glycosylation would not affect bioactivity in the assays used if the complete
human sequence was present. The Committee was informed that the source
material was now on site and that trial fills had been completed with a definitive
fill scheduled. To meet the increasing rate of demand, it was proposed that a
batch size of 8000 ampoules would be prepared – double that of the previous two
batches. An international multi-centre collaborative study would be conducted
in 2024–2025 to evaluate the performance of the candidate material and to assign
a unitage relative to the second WHO international standard. It was anticipated
that the results of the collaborative study would be submitted for consideration
by the Committee in 2026.
Noting the importance of the WHO international standard for IL-2 in the
development and production of IL-2-based products, and for the investigation
of novel therapeutic approaches, and the short time available for establishing
a replacement international standard, the Committee endorsed the proposal
(WHO/BS/2024.2472) to develop a Third WHO International Standard for
interleukin-2 (human, rDNA derived).
steps be taken to notify users and to ensure that any concerns are taken into
consideration. It was agreed that specific mention of this issue in the Executive
summary of the current meeting would be a useful first step in the broader
dissemination of the current intentions.
After due consideration, the Committee agreed that a decision on the
proposed discontinuation of the First WHO International Standard for calcitonin,
ASU 1–7 eel calcitonin analogue (elcatonin) would be taken at its next meeting in
October 2024 to provide sufficient time and opportunity for the information to
be disseminated and feedback obtained. The Committee also recommended that
any interest from other WHO collaborating centres or institutions in establishing
a replacement standard, including existing institutions in China and Japan
responsible for maintaining national standards, should be explored. Sufficient
material should be curated from current stocks to support the establishment of
such a replacement standard by another institution or to support any potential
regional standards that might be developed.
19
5. International reference materials – blood
products and related substances
5.1 Proposed new projects and updates – blood
products and related substances
5.1.1 Proposed WHO International Reference Reagent for
autoantibodies to ADAMTS13 (human, plasma)
Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a rare disorder caused by
ADAMTS13 deficiency, with a reported annual incidence of around 6 per
million population. ADAMTS13 is a plasma protease enzyme responsible for the
cleavage of von Willebrand factor, which is involved in blood clotting. Prompt
and accurate diagnosis is essential, as the onset of clinical symptoms can be rapid
with 90% of cases fatal if left untreated. TTP may either be congenital due to an
inherited deficiency (cTTP) or immune mediated due to autoantibodies against
ADAMTS13 (iTTP). Differential diagnosis is based on Bethesda-type activity
assays or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), and determines the
treatment modalities employed. Once recovered, patients must also be monitored
every 6–12 months in order to detect any onset of recurrence.
Several different activity assays and one ELISA-based binding assay are
currently available commercially, with significant discrepancies observed between
the different methods, and no common units of measurement exist between the
functional inhibitor and binding antibody methods. The Bethesda assay is also
inherently variable due to the use of different plasma pools by laboratories. The
standardization of assays and quantification of inhibitory activity will therefore
be important both for harmonization and for ensuring correct patient diagnosis,
monitoring and treatment.
It was proposed that a WHO international reference reagent for
ADAMTS13 autoantibodies for use by assay manufacturers and clinical
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
material would not be a problem as large volumes of plasma were usually collected
from iTTP patients during plasma exchange and discarded as waste material.
Having been assured of the support of the clinician network in sourcing material
for this project, the Committee endorsed the proposal (WHO/BS/2024.2472)
to develop a WHO International Reference Reagent for autoantibodies to
ADAMTS13 (human, plasma).
21
6. International reference materials – in vitro diagnostics
6.1 WHO international reference standards for in vitro diagnostics
6.1.1 First WHO International Reference Panel for
Lassa virus RNA for NAT-based assays
The Committee was reminded that at its seventy-fifth meeting in April 2022, a
twin proposal had been made to establish both a WHO international standard
and WHO international reference panel for Lassa virus (LASV) RNA for use
in NAT-based assays. The Committee had subsequently recommended the
establishment of the First WHO International Standard for Lassa virus RNA for
NAT-based assays (NIBSC code 21/112). However, in the case of the international
reference panel, the Committee had recommended that additional panel member
characterization and performance studies be conducted prior to its establishment.
The Committee had further recommended that due to insufficient data at 3
months, along with a positive microbiological result obtained for two panel
members, additional stability testing be conducted for both the international
standard and international reference panel.
The Committee was informed that additional in-house characterization
testing had now been conducted on the international reference panel with the
data indicating that previously observed variability in potency estimates for
two panel members was not due to sample commutability issues but was assay
dependent. This further demonstrated the utility and fitness for purpose of all
reference panel members in evaluating NAT-based assay performance across
different LASV lineages.
The Committee was further informed that the recommended additional
stability testing had also been completed for both the international standard
and international reference panel for up to 1-year timepoints. In the case of the
international standard, minimal loss was demonstrated across all timepoints up
to 37 °C and only a slight loss of potency observed at 45 °C at 6 months and 1
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
preparation prepared from the same material used in the pilot study, a clinical
HIV-1 antigen- and antibody-positive sample identified as subtype B, and two
clinical HIV-1 antigen-positive window period samples identified as subtype C.
All samples were tested in duplicate on three occasions.
A total of 35 datasets were produced, with low intra-laboratory variability
indicating good precision for all of the assay types used. Potency estimates for the
candidate material were calculated relative to the international reference reagent.
Following exclusion of a number of outlier results and of the results obtained
using the not yet established prototype assays, a potency of 44.1 IU/ampoule was
established for the candidate material using a robust mean rather than geometric
mean to remove bias, and with results from laboratories using the same assay
combined to remove any over-representation of specific assay systems. Assessment
of the effect of lyophilization on the candidate material was assessed by evaluating
24
International reference materials – in vitro diagnostics
its relative potency against the liquid preparation, with currently unexplained
variations in estimated potency observed. Although a significant degree of non-
commutability was observed for the candidate material, the level observed was
equivalent to that of the current international reference reagent. The implications of
the revised common technical specifications for in vitro diagnostic medical devices
for manufacturers were also investigated by calculating the approximate limit of
detection for all laboratories and methods. Assuming a value of 44 IU/ampoule for
the candidate material, all assays produced values ranging from 0.14 IU to 1.99 IU
with the exception of the Abbott Determine HIV Early Detect assay.
The Committee expressed concern regarding the performance of the
Abbott assay and noted that although not marketed within the European Union,
it would still be marketed in other countries, and hence should be considered a
problem. Further noting that only subtypes B and C had been used for the study,
and that other subtypes might be more prevalent in some parts of the world, the
Committee was informed that this was because the WHO international reference
reagent was subtype B, while the inclusion of subtype C (the circulating variant)
had previously been recommended. It was also clarified that panels of p24 clades
have been produced and can be used to assess the performance of assays against
different subtypes. Recognizing the significant challenges involved in obtaining
window period samples for this project, the Committee offered its support with
regard to the sourcing of such donations in future projects.
Having considered the report of the study (WHO/BS/2024.2470), the
Committee recommended that candidate material 22/230 be established as the
First WHO International Standard for HIV-1 p24 antigen with an assigned
unitage of 44 IU/ampoule.
now running low, and are expected to be exhausted by 2025, it was proposed
that a WHO international standard be developed to replace the it. The proposed
international standard would be prepared using a native material and formulation
similar to that used for the current international reference preparation.
As CEA contains a mixture of different carcinoembryonic antigen-
related cell adhesion molecules (CEACAMs), proteomic analysis of both the
current international reference preparation and trial-filled candidate materials
had been conducted to determine any impact of variable CEACAM distribution
on continuity. The analysis had demonstrated CEACAM5 to be present in
highest abundance, with some diversity noted in other less abundant CEACAMs.
As CEACAM5 is known to be the most prevalent and clinically relevant protein
targeted by commercial assays, it was concluded that any slight difference
in CEACAM distribution would not affect continuity. It was also proposed,
following discussion with kit manufacturers, to formulate the international
standard using 2 µg of material (compared to the 10 µg used in the current
international reference preparation) as this would be sufficient to cover the
dynamic ranges of current assays and would reduce waste. Furthermore, by using
isotope dilution mass spectrometry it may now be possible to assign SI units
to the international standard. This would help to address an observed issue of
uptake of the international reference preparation (calibrated in IU) since most
CEA immunoassays report results in ng/mL.
An international collaborative study involving 10–12 test kit
manufacturers and clinical laboratories performing CEA assays would be
conducted to evaluate the suitability of the candidate material. It was anticipated
that the results of the collaborative study would be submitted for consideration
by the Committee in 2025.
Noting that the current international reference preparation had
remained in use for 48 years, the Committee reflected that this had been due to a
combination of a large initial batch size and lower uptake rather than the use of
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
Clarification was given that the international reference preparation had been
derived from a liver biopsy of a metastatic tumour caused by colon cancer, and
that efforts would be made to ensure that a similar type of material was sourced.
While acknowledging that further detailed CEACAM analysis would not be
feasible or materially change the overall concept, the Committee recommended
that proposals for such future standards should underscore the need to obtain
source material from similar types of tissue to ensure continuity and relevance.
The Committee endorsed the proposal (WHO/BS/2024.2472) to develop
a First WHO International Standard for carcinoembryonic antigen.
6.2.2 Proposed First WHO International Standard for antibodies to Junin virus
Junin virus (JUNV) is the etiological agent of Argentine haemorrhagic fever,
which causes significant morbidity and has a mortality rate of 15–30%. The virus
is spread through a rodent reservoir that is so far confined to Argentina. Although
only 10–15 cases have been reported in recent years, approximately 5 million
people are considered to be at risk and live within the endemic area in which the
rodent reservoir is present. Post-exposure treatment options are limited to the
transfusion of immune plasma and the off-label use of ribavirin and favipiravir.
A live attenuated vaccine (Candid#1) has been licensed in Argentina since 1992
but its use is limited to adult populations at risk due to concerns regarding the
stability of the attenuated phenotype. Several alternative vaccine platforms are
now in preclinical development.
JUNV is a member of the family Arenaviridae – which is divided into
New World viruses (such as JUNV) and Old World viruses (such as LASV).
Global pandemic preparedness efforts are moving towards an approach based
on identifying prototype pathogens that could represent viruses within a whole
taxonomic group, rather than focusing on individual priority pathogens. In
this regard, LASV has been identified as a prototype pathogen for Old World
arenaviruses, with JUNV a likely suitable prototype pathogen for New World
arenaviruses.
Given the expected development of JUNV vaccines, therapeutics
and diagnostics, assay standardization and calibration will be vital for the
accurate evaluation and regulatory approval of such products. In-house ELISA,
immunofluorescence assays and neutralization assays are currently used to detect
antibodies to JUNV. The availability of a WHO international standard for use
by JUNV vaccine manufacturers, NCLs and other public health laboratories,
therapeutic antibody producers, assay kit manufacturers and research laboratories
would support the further development and standardization of such assays,
align with the prototype pathogen approach and complement the First WHO
International Standard for anti-Lassa virus immunoglobulin G established on the
advice of the Committee in 2021.
27
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
28
7. International reference materials – standards for
use in high-throughput sequencing technologies
7.1 WHO international reference standards for use in
high-throughput sequencing technologies
7.1.1 First WHO International Reference Panel for adventitious virus
detection in biological products by high-throughput sequencing
HTS technologies have the ability to detect both known and novel adventitious
viruses in biological products. As an alternative to conventional adventitious virus
detection, which relies on in vivo animal testing and in vitro cell culture assays or
on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, HTS has the potential to expand the
breadth of virus detection while also significantly shortening the time required
for the quality control testing of biological products. Importantly, the increasing
implementation of HTS for this purpose aligns with, and provides support for,
the shift towards reducing the use of animals in such testing. Encouraged by
regulatory guidance worldwide, the need for international viral standards for
HTS process qualification and validation to support the application of HTS to
biological product virus safety testing has long been recognized.
An international collaborative study involving nine laboratories in six
countries had therefore been conducted to evaluate the suitability of seven viruses
representing diverse virus families for use as a potential WHO international
reference panel for adventitious virus detection in biological products by HTS.
The following viruses had been selected based on their distinct physicochemical
and genome properties:
■ human betacoronavirus OC43 (hCoV)
■ porcine circovirus type 1 (PCV1)
■ mammalian orthoreovirus type 1 (REO)
■ feline leukemia virus (FeLV)
■ Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)
■ human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)
■ minute virus of mice (MVM).
The viruses were spiked together at different spike levels but all laboratories
included testing at 104 genome copies/mL of each virus into 109 genome copies/
mL of adenovirus 5 to evaluate the breadth of virus detection using HTS in a
high-titre virus background mimicking a low-complexity biological sample
with reduced host cellular content – for example, a viral vaccine seed or virus
vector preparation. Participating laboratories followed a common protocol for
preparing the spiked samples and then used their own HTS workflow protocols.
29
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
All laboratories returning data detected the seven viruses between 104 and 105
genome copies/mL. Differences observed in virus detection between laboratories
reflected the different protocols used in the HTS workflow.
The Committee commended this excellent study and noted its timeliness
in the context of ongoing work to develop WHO guidance on the implementation
of 3Rs principles when testing biological products – which included the recent
establishment of a WHO working group on the implementation of 3Rs principles.
Further commenting on the related need for written guidance and training on
the application of HTS in ensuring the quality and safety of such products, the
Committee noted that several conferences on the application of HTS technologies
in biological product testing had been held by the International Alliance for
Biological Standardization.
Noting the urgent need for this reference panel and its relevance in
ensuring the safety of cell and gene therapy products, the Committee enquired
as to the anticipated demand and the likely effects of this on supplies. The
Committee was assured that the 1000 panels prepared should be sufficient for
about 5 years, with the expectation that panel titres would be sufficiently high to
last an individual organization for at least 1 year.
Enquiring about the potential impact of endogenous viruses in the cell
lines used to prepare the virus stocks, the Committee was informed that although
two retroviruses had been detected this did not affect the performance of the
panel. Similarly, contamination of the panel with residual host cell DNA did not
contribute significantly to the spike levels given the high titre of panel members.
However, the level of contamination with host cell DNA would be recorded in the
certificate of analysis.
Recognizing the importance of such a panel in helping to understand the
impact of bioinformatics on the sensitivity of HTS for detecting extraneous agents,
the Committee was informed that while the data to support establishment of the
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
31
8. International reference materials – vaccines
and related substances
8.1 WHO international reference standards for
vaccines and related substances
8.1.1 WHO International Reference Reagent for diphtheria
antitoxin for use in flocculation test (equine)
Diphtheria toxoid is typically administered in combination with tetanus and
pertussis as DTP vaccines, and is also a carrier protein in several glycoconjugate
vaccines. Reliable evaluation of the concentration and quality of diphtheria
toxoid in combination vaccines depends upon the accuracy and robustness of the
routinely used flocculation test which requires the use of hyperimmune equine
diphtheria antitoxin as a critical reagent. The equine diphtheria antitoxin used
in the flocculation test is produced from hyperimmune horse serum, with a
lyophilized preparation of hyperimmune equine antitoxin (NIBSC code 63/007)
previously available as a non-WHO reference material. However, this reagent had
been widely used and stocks were now completely depleted. In 2023, the Committee
had therefore endorsed a proposal to develop a First WHO International Reference
Reagent for diphtheria antitoxin for use in flocculation test (equine).
The Committee was informed that a purified diphtheria equine
immunoglobulin preparation produced from a pool of equine serum had been
filled and lyophilized in ampoules to produce the candidate material (NIBSC code
23/102). The candidate material had an estimated diphtheria antitoxin potency
of 1032 IU/ampoule as assessed by toxin neutralization assay. As the proposed
international reference material would be used as a reagent (not a calibrant) and
as only a single method was involved, characterization of the candidate material
was undertaken in a small collaborative study involving seven laboratories in five
countries. Study participants calibrated the candidate material against the Third
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
WHO International Standard for diphtheria toxoid for use in flocculation test
(NIBSC code 13/212) using the Ramon flocculation method.
Study results (expressed in Lf-eq/mL against 13/212) gave an overall
geometric mean value of 956 Lf-eq/mL for the candidate material (range 890–
1032 Lf-eq/mL), with low intra- and inter-laboratory geometric coefficients of
variation observed. Initial data from an accelerated thermal degradation study
indicated that the candidate material would have good long-term stability, with
further testing to be performed. The 1831 ampoules produced would likely be
sufficient for at least 6–7 years.
Discussing the differences in results that had been noted between
different laboratories, the Committee was informed that this was most likely
attributable to the subjectivity of the flocculation test and difficulty in seeing
the end-point. The Committee also noted that sourcing sufficient material for
32
International reference materials – vaccines and related substances
this type of standard was challenging and advised that sufficient time be allowed
when sourcing future replacements.
Having considered the report of the study (WHO/BS/2024.2469), the
Committee recommended that candidate material 23/102 be established as
the WHO International Reference Reagent for diphtheria antitoxin for use in
flocculation test (equine) with no assigned unitage.
vaccinia virus.
positive samples needed to prepare the candidate material. In addition, given the
dramatic decline in the number of human infections, and successful control of the
disease in poultry through immunization efforts, the need for this international
standard no longer existed.
While noting the potential value of such a reference material for
pre-pandemic preparedness for the re-emergence of influenza A(H7N9), the
Committee was nevertheless confident that in the event of such re-emergence
that a reference standard could be prepared quickly as there would then be
a ready supply of convalescent serum. Recognizing the challenge in sourcing
material at the current time, the Committee agreed that a final decision on
whether or not to proceed with the development of a First WHO International
Standard for antibodies to influenza A(H7N9) virus would be taken at its
meeting in October 2024.
37
Annex 1
WHO Recommendations, Guidelines and other documents
related to the manufacture, quality control and evaluation
of biological products
WHO Recommendations, Guidelines and other documents in the field of
biological product development and standardization are intended to be scientific
and advisory in nature. Each of these documents provides guidance for national
regulatory authorities (NRAs), developers and manufacturers of biological
products, and others who may have to decide upon appropriate methods for
ensuring that such products are safe, reliable and potent. In the case of WHO
Recommendations and Guidelines, the guidance provided may, if an NRA so
desires, be adopted as definitive national requirements or used as the basis of
such requirements.
WHO Recommendations, Guidelines and other guidance documents for
biological products are formulated by international groups of experts, and are
adopted on the recommendation of the WHO Expert Committee on Biological
Standardization. Following adoption, the documents are published in the WHO
Technical Report Series4 as part of the respective full report of the Committee,
and as listed in this annex. The full reports of the Committee are freely available
for download at https://iris.who.int/. Hard copies of the reports can also be
purchased from:
WHO Press
World Health Organization
20 avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.who.int/bookorders
In all cases in which a previous version of a WHO Recommendations,
Guidelines or other guidance document has been revised and superseded by an
updated document, it is of paramount importance that only the latest version of
the document is used. All documents listed in this annex are current, with no
previous versions shown. The annex has also been arranged alphabetically either
by product type or regulatory topic to facilitate easy identification of the most
up-to-date document.
4
Abbreviated in the following pages to “TRS”.
39
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Table 1
List of current WHO documents for biological products published prior to 2018 in
which any mention of the innocuity test (also known as the abnormal toxicity test or
general safety test) should be disregarded
5
Lei D, Schmidt H, Knezevic I, Zhou T, Kang H-N, Kopp S. Removal of the innocuity test from The International
Pharmacopoeia and WHO recommendations for vaccines and biological products. Biologicals. 2020;66:17–20
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045105620300610, accessed 27 December 2023).
40
Annex 1
Table 1 continued
Product WHO document Name of test as it
appears in document
Human interferons Annex 3: TRS 786 Innocuity
Influenza vaccines (inactivated) Annex 3: TRS 927 General safety (innocuity)
Japanese encephalitis vaccines Annex 1: TRS 963 General safety (innocuity)
(inactivated)
Japanese encephalitis vaccines Annex 7: TRS 980 General safety
(live, attenuated)
Malaria vaccines (recombinant) Annex 3: TRS 980 General safety
Meningococcal A conjugate Annex 2: TRS 962 General safety (innocuity)
vaccines
Meningococcal C conjugate Annex 2: TRS 924 General safety (innocuity)
vaccines
Meningococcal polysaccharide Annex 2: TRS 594 Abnormal toxicity
vaccines (unconjugated) Annex 2 TRS 904
MMR and combined vaccines (live) Annex 3: TRS 840 General safety
Pertussis vaccines (acellular) Annex 4: TRS 979 Innocuity
Pertussis vaccines (whole cell) Annex 6: TRS 941 General safety (innocuity)
Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines Annex 3: TRS 977 General safety (innocuity)
Poliomyelitis vaccines (inactivated) Annex 3: TRS 993 General safety (innocuity)
Amendment (requirement Annex 3: TRS 1024
removed)
Rabies vaccines (inactivated) Annex 2: TRS 941 General safety (innocuity)
Rift Valley fever vaccines Annex 4: TRS 673 Innocuity
(inactivated)
Smallpox vaccines Annex 1: TRS 926 General safety (innocuity)
Snake antivenom immunoglobulins Annex 5: TRS 1004 Abnormal toxicity
Synthetic peptide vaccines Annex 1: TRS 889 Routine control
Tetanus vaccines (adsorbed) Annex 5: TRS 980 Innocuity
Tick-borne encephalitis vaccines Annex 2: TRS 889 General safety
(inactivated)
41
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Table 1 continued
Product WHO document Name of test as it
appears in document
Typhoid vaccines (live attenuated, Annex 3: TRS 700 Innocuity
Ty 21a, oral)
Typhoid vaccines (Vi polysaccharide) Annex 1: TRS 840 Abnormal toxicity
Vaccines (stability evaluation of ) Annex 3: TRS 962 General safety
Abnormal toxicity
Varicella vaccine (live) Annex 1: TRS 848 General safety
Yellow fever vaccines (live, Annex 5: TRS 978 General safety
attenuated)
DT = diphtheria and tetanus; HFRS = haemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome; VLP = virus-like particle;
MMR = measles, mumps and rubella.
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
42
Annex 1
6
Adopted on the recommendation of the WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical
Preparations, with significant input from the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization.
43
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
44
Annex 1
45
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Reference materials: secondary; for NAT-based Adopted 2016, TRS 1004 (2017)
and antigen assays; calibration against WHO
International Standards
Regulation and licensing of biological products Adopted 1994, TRS 858 (1995)
in countries with newly developing regulatory
authorities
Regulatory risk evaluation on finding an adventitious Adopted 2014, TRS 993 (2015)
agent in a marketed vaccine: scientific principles
7
Adopted on the recommendation of the WHO Expert Committee on Specifications for Pharmaceutical
Preparations, with significant input from the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization.
46
Annex 1
47
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
48
Annex 2
Nonclinical and clinical evaluation of monoclonal
antibodies and related products intended for the
prevention or treatment of COVID-19
Addendum to Annex 2 of WHO Technical Report Series, No.1048
1. Introduction 52
2. Purpose and scope 52
3. Terminology 53
4. General considerations 53
5. International reference materials 55
6. Nonclinical evaluation 55
6.1 Pharmacodynamics studies 56
6.2 In vivo studies 58
7. Clinical evaluation 62
7.1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria 64
7.2 Phase I studies 66
7.3 Clinical pharmacology 66
7.4 Phase II and III studies 67
Authors and acknowledgements 73
References 74
49
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
50
Annex 2
Abbreviations
ACE2 angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (receptor)
ADA anti-drug antibody
ADE antibody-dependent enhancement (of disease)
AE adverse event
AESI adverse event of special interest
COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019
Fc fragment crystallizable (region)
FcγR Fc gamma receptor
GMT geometric mean titre
IMP investigational medicinal product
MAAE medically attended adverse event
mAb monoclonal antibody
PD pharmacodynamics
PK pharmacokinetics
NRA national regulatory authority
RBD receptor binding domain
RT-PCR reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction
S spike (glycoprotein)
SAE serious adverse event
SARS-CoV-2 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
51
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
1. Introduction
Evaluating the safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and related
products intended for the prevention or treatment of infectious diseases requires
different considerations than mAb products that target endogenous proteins,
such as those intended for the treatment of noncommunicable diseases. To help
address such differences, the WHO Guidelines on the nonclinical and clinical
evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and related products intended for the
prevention or treatment of infectious diseases (1) was adopted in 2023 on the
recommendation of the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization.
These Guidelines outline the general principles applicable to the evaluation
of mAbs for use against infectious diseases. However, although the document
provides guidance on evaluating the safety and efficacy of mAb products
regardless of the targeted pathogen, it was recognized that pathogen-specific
considerations would potentially affect the interpretation and application of the
guidance provided.
52
Annex 2
3. Terminology
The following definitions apply to the terms as used in this addendum. These
terms may have different meanings in other contexts. It should be noted that
additional terms relevant to this addendum are defined in the WHO Guidelines
on the nonclinical and clinical evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and related
products intended for the prevention or treatment of infectious diseases (1).
COVID-19: the disease caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Long COVID: health problems that persist or develop after infection
with SARS-CoV-2, and which may last from several weeks to years.
SARS-CoV-2: the virus that causes COVID-19.
Variant: a virus that possesses mutations which may confer altered
transmissibility, receptor binding affinity, virulence, morbidity or mortality. A
number of SARS-CoV-2 variants have been labelled as “variants of interest”
(VOI), “variants of concern” (VOC) or variants under monitoring (VUM)
depending on their emerging dominance among actively circulating strains.
4. General considerations
SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus belonging
to the genus Betacoronavirus. The virus first emerged in Wuhan, China in 2019,
with sustained human-to-human transmission confirmed shortly afterwards,
followed by its rapid spread worldwide. Evidence of sustained global transmission
led WHO to declare COVID-19 a pandemic in March 2020. COVID-19 was
subsequently officially declared to no longer be a public health emergency of
international concern by WHO on 5 May 2023. Nevertheless, the disease remains
a major threat, with SARS-CoV-2 still in circulation in most regions of the world.
SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted primarily by the respiratory route producing
a mucosal infection after a short incubation period that results in a range of
disease symptoms and outcomes – from asymptomatic to severe disease leading to
hospitalization and death, as well as long COVID in some cases (3–7). Moreover,
there is a possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic and will continue
to cause substantial levels of hospitalization and death due to the emergence of
new variants. This is of particular concern among vulnerable groups such as the
immunocompromised and those with underlying comorbidities (8, 9).
Monoclonal antibodies, vaccines and other therapeutics against
SARS-CoV-2 were developed rapidly and authorized for use, initially under
emergency procedures. These early mAbs (10–12) and other products were all
based on the genetic sequence of the ancestral Wuhan strain and provided
protection against severe disease, hospitalization and death. However, to date,
no correlates of protection or threshold of protection have been established and
53
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
20, 24, 25). To expedite the development of new mAbs, consideration is being
given by some but not all regulatory authorities to immunobridging studies in
support of licensure (see section 7.4.2 below). However, it is important that such
an approach be discussed directly with the relevant NRA.
Clearly, the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 requires continuous
monitoring for significant changes in local circulating variant strains which
might impact the performance of mAbs, both in clinical studies and in use
(26). Similarly, careful attention needs to be given to the virus strains used in
nonclinical and clinical evaluation studies to ensure that the virus preparation
used is well characterized and standardized with respect to variant strains (27).
Although the emergence of resistant variants of SARS-CoV-2 is an issue
of concern with regard to efficacy, no major safety signals have been identified
regarding the use of mAbs to prevent or treat COVID-19. However, the potential
54
Annex 2
6. Nonclinical evaluation
There are several important factors to consider when designing nonclinical
studies for mAbs intended to prevent or treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Such
studies should characterize the targeted SARS-CoV-2 binding site/epitope and
55
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
the ability of the mAb to neutralize virus variants. The primary pharmacological
effector functions of the mAb should be considered, especially if the Fc region
of the mAb has been engineered. Any potential risk of unwanted or unexpected
cross-reactivity with human cells or tissues, ADE or viral resistance should also
be explored.
For the assessment of inhaled or intranasally administered mAbs, the
selection of an animal model should take into consideration the differences in the
anatomy and physiology of human and animal respiratory systems. The animal
model selected should be justified when designing proof-of-concept studies for
demonstrating mAb antiviral activity. If a delivery device (for example, nebulizer
or dry powder inhaler) is required, its mechanism of delivery should be similar to
the device intended for clinical use in humans. In some cases, additional studies
may be required to ensure optimal conditions for mAb delivery in the animal
model to be used.
7
Any animal species used for in vivo studies should be chosen carefully and thoroughly justified. For
scientific and ethical reasons, it is desirable to apply the 3Rs principles of “Replace, Reduce, Refine”.
58
Annex 2
59
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Table 1
SARS-CoV-2 infection characteristics and disease outcomes in animal models
60
Annex 2
Table 1 continued
Relevant animal models Infection characteristics and disease outcome
Other
Ferret • Naturally susceptible to SARS-CoV-2
• Clinical symptoms similar to humans (fever and mild
respiratory symptoms)
• Viral replication observed in respiratory tract (nasal
wash, lungs)
• Interstitial pneumonia observed
• No deaths from infection observed
Non-human primate – non-human primates should only be considered as a last
resort option, and the selection of this model should be extensively justified
Rhesus macaque • Mild clinical disease (for example, fever, weight loss)
• High levels of viral replication in respiratory tract
(detected by nasal swab, bronchoalveolar lavage,
lung tissue examination); lung histopathological
changes (for example, pneumonia, pulmonary
discoloration) similar to humans
• Severe disease not observed
• Naturally cleared infection
Cynomolgus macaque • Mild clinical disease (for example, fever, weight loss)
• High levels of viral replication in respiratory tract
(detected by nasal swab, bronchoalveolar lavage,
lung tissue examination); lung histopathological
changes (for example, diffuse alveolar damage,
pulmonary discoloration) similar to humans
• Severe disease not observed
• Naturally cleared infection
African green monkey • Clinical disease and histopathological changes
similar to rhesus or cynomolgus macaques
• Severe disease (acute respiratory distress syndrome)
observed in aged monkeys
7. Clinical evaluation
There are several factors to be considered in the clinical development programmes
of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs as they impact the clinical trial design and end-points
to be used. One important consideration is whether the product is intended to
be used as a prophylactic (for pre-exposure prophylaxis and/or post-exposure
prophylaxis), as a therapeutic, or both.
For treatment indications, the timing of administration of the mAb is
especially relevant. Current anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs were generally found to be
more effective when administered early to patients with symptomatic COVID-19
and prior to hospitalization (42, 43). Some, but not all, studies suggest that such
mAbs may be associated with worse outcomes for patients requiring high-flow
oxygen or mechanical ventilation (44–46).
Inhaled or intranasally administered mAbs are currently under
development and may provide some advantages due to more-localized
administration and lower systemic exposure. Additional considerations may
be required for these alternative routes of administration, such as compatibility
of the delivery device with the mAb formulation, mAb distribution within the
airways and potential for systemic exposure. In addition, robust pharmacokinetic
and pharmacodynamic modelling should be performed. For efficacy evaluation,
consideration may be given to measuring the prevention of infection. Sponsors
should consult with the NRA to help ensure a comprehensive regulatory approach
for such products.
Because of the functionality of the mAb, healthy volunteers may not
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
be suitable candidates for therapeutic efficacy trials, but may be appropriate for
prophylactic studies. Healthy volunteers may also provide useful data on product
safety, preliminary pharmacokinetics (PK) and potential for anti-drug antibody
(ADA) induction in Phase I studies. PK parameters may require confirmation
in infected patients to highlight any differences compared to healthy volunteers.
As repeated administration of the mAb may alter its safety and activity profiles,
repeat-dosing studies should be conducted to support the use of additional
administrations.
Clinical trial duration can vary depending on the biological half-life of the
mAb. A number of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs have been engineered for increased
half-lives of approximately 6 months. The duration of follow-up for participants
should be appropriate for the investigational product to provide information on
its long-term efficacy and safety, and should be discussed with the NRA.
62
Annex 2
7.1.1 Prophylaxis
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
7.1.2 Treatment
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
66
Annex 2
7.3.2 Pharmacodynamics
The PK, combined with nonclinical PD target levels, should guide the doses to
be evaluated. Such studies may involve the ex vivo assessment of the neutralizing
activity of the mAb in serum collected at different timepoints following
administration.
7.4.2 Immunobridging
To accelerate initial approval of novel mAbs manufactured on the same platform
technology as already approved mAbs, an immunobridging approach could be an
acceptable pathway for mAbs intended for prevention (54). The immunobridging
should be based on a cross-variant comparison in a non-inferiority study with an
approved mAb with the same indication. The geometric mean titres (GMTs) of
neutralizing antibodies at Day 28 of an already approved mAb product against a
virus strain for which efficacy was shown (for example, Alpha) should be compared
to the GMTs achieved at the same timepoint with the new investigational mAb
product against circulating variants. The acceptable non-inferiority margin
when using a comparison of GMT values should be discussed with the NRA.
Following initial approval, post-marketing efficacy data (including data from the
investigation of breakthrough cases) should be collected, neutralizing antibody
concentrations monitored to determine the timing of antibody waning, and long-
term efficacy and safety data generated for at least 6 months.
Deciding upon the acceptability of an immunobridging approach,
particularly for bispecific mAbs and mAbs with a different mechanism of action,
will be in the remit of the NRA.
Presently, there are not sufficient data to derive a specific mAb
concentration or neutralizing threshold to derive a correlate of protection for
SARS-CoV-2.
7.4.3 Safety
The continual evaluation of mAb product safety is an important component
within all phases of clinical studies. Although mAbs generally have a very good
safety profile, each product is unique and should be considered independently.
Safety data should be obtained from a sufficient number of subjects
during the clinical trials to characterize and quantify the product safety profile,
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
which can include the type, frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions.
In some cases, it may be possible to consider safety data from multiple clinical
studies if both the products tested and the study conditions are sufficiently similar.
Evaluating the safety and tolerability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs should
include the recording of all adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs),
medically attended adverse events (MAAEs) and adverse events of special interest
(AESIs) over the duration of the study (Table 2).
Product reactogenicity should also be clearly characterized by monitoring
immune responses to the mAb through ADA titres and immune system activity.
68
Annex 2
Table 2
Objectives, estimands and clinical end-points
69
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Table 2 continued
Objectives Estimand description/end-point
Exploratory
Estimate the efficacy of the mAb An appropriate time frame for assessment of
over a longer time frame efficacy for pre-exposure prophylaxis should be
provided to the NRA based on the end-point
being assessed. (for example, 12 months for
prophylaxis)
A binary response whereby a participant is
defined as a COVID-19 case if a SARS-CoV-2
RT-PCR-positive symptomatic illness occurs post
dose(s) of mAb and prior to the specified time
frame.
Determine anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAb Post-treatment GMT and geometric mean fold
levels in serum following the rise from baseline value through an extended
administration of the mAb time frame
Quantify SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in Viral genome copies in nasopharyngeal swabs
infected participants treated with at illness visits as determined by quantitative
the mAb RT-PCR
Quantify the duration of viral Duration of SARS-CoV-2 shedding in saliva
shedding in participants with
symptomatic COVID-19 treated
with the mAb
Characterize the risk of Genotypic analysis and biochemical and/or
development of resistance to the susceptibility analysis of SARS-CoV-2 variants
mAb in patients with virological
failure
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
70
Annex 2
Sponsors should consult with the NRA early in the product development
phase on the requirements for specific nonclinical studies, and on the potential
inclusion of pregnant women in clinical studies to promote the health of pregnant
women and their fetus, and to inform prescribing decisions during pregnancy.
Proper follow-up of the mother-child pair should also be considered to fully
determine the impact of product administration on maternal and newborn
health (63–68).
outcomes. Therefore, while most children infected with SARS-CoV-2 will recover
without therapy, treatment of mild or moderate infection should be considered in
paediatric patients at highest risk of progression to severe disease. This would be
in alignment with the current indication for the use of mAbs against SARS-CoV-2
in adults.
None of the currently licensed mAbs against SARS-CoV-2 are authorized
for use in children under 12 years of age. In addition, even for mAbs against
SARS-CoV-2 that have already been commercialized, safety and efficacy data
in paediatric patients are limited. Furthermore, the additional data available
from observational studies are associated with limitations. With regard to post-
authorization data, it is important to highlight that the generation of data in
children has been greatly hampered by the loss of effectiveness of early mAbs
against recently circulating VOC. Overall, the data generated so far do not suggest
72
Annex 2
an excessive risk of toxicity in children compared with adults, and mAbs seem to
be well tolerated. However, the lack of a comparator group in studies makes clear
estimation of the effectiveness of mAbs in preventing COVID-19 progression in
children difficult. Therefore, further studies are needed to fully define the safety
and efficacy of mAb therapy in the paediatric population (71–74).
The inclusion of children and adolescents in clinical trials should always
be considered when planning a study to avoid knowledge gaps and to facilitate
early access to new medicinal products (73–77). Sponsors are encouraged to
discuss paediatric drug development with the NRA early in clinical development,
including: (a) the potential for extrapolating efficacy data from studies in adults;
(b) appropriate PK trials in paediatric subjects to support dose selection; (c) the
recommended size of the pre-approval safety database in children; and (d) the
targeted age group(s) (78–80).
Canada, Canada. The draft document was then reviewed and revised by a drafting
group comprising Dr A. Chia, Dr E. Griffiths, Dr R. Isbrucker, Dr J. Lacroix,
and Dr S. Buchholz and Dr M. Gonzalez-Tome, European Medicines Agency,
Netherlands (Kingdom of the); and Dr B. Klug, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany;
and by Dr I. Knezevic and Dr E.K. Kim, World Health Organization, Switzerland.
The resulting draft document was posted on the WHO Biologicals website
from 1 November to 4 December 2023 for a first round of public consultation.
Comments were received from Dr S. Hufton and Dr G. Mattiuzzo, Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, United Kingdom; Dr J. Wang, National
Institutes for Food and Drug Control, China; Dr S. Tognarelli, Paul-Ehrlich-
Institut, Germany; Dr T. Cohen, AstraZeneca, USA; the Nonclinical working
party, 3Rs working party, and Pregnancy group, European Medicines Agency,
Netherlands (Kingdom of the); Dr J. Holst, Holst PharmaWorks, Norway; and Dr
R. Gupta, Vir Biotechnology, USA.
All comments received were collated and distributed to the drafting
group members for their consideration, and revisions to the text made
accordingly. The revised document (WHO/BS/2024.2466) was then posted on
the WHO Biologicals website from 11 January to 15 February 2024 for a second
round of public consultation. Comments were received from Dr S. Fakhrzadeh,
Consultant, Iran (Islamic Republic of); Dr I. Feavers, United Kingdom; Bharat
Biotech International Limited, India; Dr S. Silviera, Brazilian Health Regulatory
Agency, Brazil; Dr J. Southern, South African Health Products Regulatory
Authority, South Africa; European Medicines Agency, Netherlands (Kingdom of
the); and Dr T. Cohen, AstraZeneca, USA. All comments received were taken
into consideration and an updated document prepared.
Editorial review of the resulting document was then completed by Dr
T. Waddell, United Kingdom in accordance with WHO requirements for all
documents appearing in the WHO Technical Report Series.
Further changes were made to document WHO/BS/2024.2466 by the
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
References
1. Guidelines on the nonclinical and clinical evaluation of monoclonal antibodies and related products
intended for the prevention or treatment of infectious diseases. In: WHO Expert Committee on
Biological Standardization: seventy-seventh report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023:
Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1048; https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/373128,
accessed 20 December 2023).
2. Guidelines for the production and quality control of monoclonal antibodies and related products
intended for medicinal use. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: seventy-
fifth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022: Annex 4 (WHO Technical Report Series, No.
1043; https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/362194, accessed 20 December 2023).
74
Annex 2
3. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2023: far from over. Editorial. Lancet. 2023;401(10371):79 (https://
www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00050-8/fulltext, accessed 20
December 2023).
4. Davis HE, McCorkell L, Vogel JM, Topol EJ. Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and
recommendations. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023;21:133–46 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-
022-00846-2, accessed 20 December 2023).
5. COVID-19 Weekly Epidemiological Update. Edition 152. 20 July 2023. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2023 (https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-
reports/20230720_weekly_epi_update_152.pdf, accessed 20 December 2023).
6. Sánchez FJM, Martínez-Sellés M, García JMM, Guillén SM, Rodríguez-Artalejo F, Ruiz-Galiana J et al.
Insights for COVID-19 in 2023. Rev Esp Quimioter. 2023;36(2):114–24 (https://seq.es/wp-content/
uploads/2022/12/martin13dec2022.pdf, accessed 20 December 2023).
7. Al-Aly Z, Agarwal A, Alwan N, Luyckx VA. Long COVID: long-term health outcomes and implications
for policy and research. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2023;19(1):1–2 (https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41581-022-00652-2, accessed 20 December 2023).
8. Shaman J, Galanti M. Will SARS-CoV-2 become endemic? Science. 2020;370(6516):527–9 (https://
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5960?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.
org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed, accessed 20 December 2023).
9. Cohen C, Pulliam J. COVID-19 infection, reinfection, and the transition to endemicity. Lancet.
2023;401(10379):798–800 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-
6736(22)02634-4/fulltext, accessed 20 December 2023).
10. Ling Z, Yi C, Sun X, Yang Z, Sun B. Broad strategies for neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 and other human
coronaviruses with monoclonal antibodies. Sci China Life Sci. 2023;66(4):658–78 (https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s11427-022-2215-6, accessed 20 December 2023).
11. Focosi D, McConnell S, Casadevall A, Cappello E, Valdiserra G, Tuccori M. Monoclonal antibody
therapies against SARS-CoV-2. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(11):e311–26 (https://www.thelancet.
com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00311-5/fulltext, accessed 20 December 2023).
12. Jiang S, Hillyer C, Du L. Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and other human coronaviruses.
Trends Immunol. 2020;41(5):355–9 (https://www.cell.com/trends/immunology/fulltext/S1471-
4906(20)30057-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2
FS1471490620300570%3Fshowall%3Dtrue, accessed 20 December 2023). Erratum (see: https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271084/, accessed 20 December 2023).
13. Knezevic I, Mattiuzzo G, Page M, Minor P, Griffiths E, Nuebling M et al. WHO International Standard
for evaluation of the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines: call for urgent action by the
scientific community. Lancet Microbe. 2022;3(3):e235–40 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/
lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00266-4/fulltext, accessed 20 December 2023).
14. Wang Q, Guo Y, Iketani S, Nair MS, Li Z, Mohri H et al. Antibody evasion by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron
subvariants BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5. Nature. 2022;608(7923):603–8 (https://www.nature.com/
articles/s41586-022-05053-w, accessed 20 December 2023).
15. Gupta A, Gonzalez-Rojas Y, Juarez E, Crespo Casal M, Moya J, Falci DR et al. Early treatment for
COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody sotrovimab. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(21):1941–
50 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107934, accessed 20 December 2023).
16. Da Silva MA, Nioche P, Soudaramourty C, Bull-Maurer A, Tiouajni M, Kong D et al. Repetitive mRNA
vaccination is required to improve the quality of broad-spectrum anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in
the absence of CXCL13. Sci Adv. 2023;9(31):eadg2122 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/
sciadv.adg2122, accessed 20 December 2023).
75
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
17. DeGrace MM, Ghedin E, Frieman MB, Krammer F, Grifoni A , Alisoltani A et al. Defining the risk
of SARS-CoV-2 variants on immune protection. Nature. 2022;605(7911):640–52 (https://www.
nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04690-5, accessed 20 December 2023).
18. Pulliam JRC, van Schalkwyk C, Govender N, von Gottberg A, Cohen C, Groome MJ et al. Increased
risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection associated with emergence of Omicron in South Africa. Science.
2022;376(6593):eabn4947 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn4947, accessed 20
December 2023).
19. van Dorp L, Acman M, Richard D, Shaw LP, Ford CE, Ormond L et al. Emergence of genomic
diversity and recurrent mutations in SARS-CoV-2. Infect Genet Evol. 2020;83:104351 (https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820301829, accessed 20 December 2023).
20. Wang Z, Schmidt F, Weisblum Y, Muecksch F, Barnes CO, Finkin S et al. mRNA vaccine-elicited
antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants. Nature. 2021;592(7855):616–22 (https://www.
nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6, accessed 20 December 2023).
21. Dormeshkin D, Shapira M, Dubovik S, Kavaleuski A, Katsin M, Migas A et al. Isolation of an escape-
resistant SARS-COV-2 neutralizing nanobody from a novel synthetic nanobody library. Front
Immunol. 2022:13:965446 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.965446/
full, accessed 23 December 2023).
22. Watanabe Y, Allen JD, Wrapp D, McLellan JS, Crispin M. Site-specific glycan analysis of the SARS-
CoV-2 spike. Science. 2020;369:330–3 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb9983,
accessed 23 December 2023).
23. Coutard B, Valle C, de Lamballerie X, Canard B, Seidah NG, Decroly E. The spike glycoprotein of
the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same
clade. Antiviral Res. 2020;176:104742 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0166354220300528, accessed 23 December 2023).
24. Wang Q, Bowen A, Valdez R, Gherasim C, Gordon A, Liu L et al. Antibody response to Omicron
BA.4–BA.5 bivalent booster. New Engl J Med. 2023;388(6):567–9 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/
full/10.1056/NEJMc2213907, accessed 23 December 2023).
25. Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, DaSilva J, Poston D, Lorenzi JCC et al. Escape from neutralizing
antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. ELife. 2020;9:e61312 (https://elifesciences.org/
articles/61312, accessed 23 December 2023).
26. Xie X, Zou J, Fontes-Garfias CR, Xia H, Swanson KA, Cutler M et al. Neutralization of N501Y mutant
SARS-CoV-2 by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera. bioRxiv. 2021 (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/1
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
76
Annex 2
30. Second WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin. In: WHO Expert
Committee on Biological Standardization: seventy-sixth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2023 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1045, section 8.1.2, pp. 43–46; https://iris.
who.int/handle/10665/368140, accessed 23 December 2023).
31. First WHO International Standard for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. In: WHO
Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: seventy-sixth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2023 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1045, section 8.1.2, pp. 43–46; https://iris.
who.int/handle/10665/368140, accessed 23 December 2023).
32. First WHO International Reference Panel for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. In: WHO
Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: seventy-sixth report. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2023 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1045, section 8.1.2, pp. 43–46; https://iris.
who.int/handle/10665/368140, accessed 23 December 2023).
33. Expansion of the First WHO International Reference Panel for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 variants
of concern. In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization: seventy-seventh report.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1048, section 8.1.1,
pp. 30–31; https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/373128, accessed 23 December 2023).
34. Mouna L, Razazian M, Duquesne S, Roque-Afonso AM, Vauloup-Fellous C. Validation of a SARS-
CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test in recovered and vaccinated healthcare workers. Viruses.
2023;15(2):426 (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/15/2/426, accessed 24 December 2023).
35. Wisnewski AV, Liu J, Lucas C, Klein J, Iwasaki A, Cantley L et al. Development and utilization of
a surrogate SARS-CoV-2 viral neutralization assay to assess mRNA vaccine responses. PLoS
One. 2022;17(1):e0262657 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.
pone.0262657, accessed 24 December 2023).
36. Sánchez-Zuno GA, Matuz-Flores MG, González-Estevez G, Nicoletti F, Turrubiates-Hernández FJ,
Mangano K et al. A review: antibody-dependent enhancement in COVID-19: the not so friendly
side of antibodies. Int Journal of Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2021;35 (https://journals.sagepub.
com/doi/full/10.1177/20587384211050199, accessed 24 December 2023).
37. Okuya K, Hattori T, Saito T, Takadate Y, Sasaki M, Furuyama W et al. Multiple routes of antibody-
dependent enhancement of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10(2):e0155321
(https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/spectrum.01553-21, accessed 24 December 2023).
38. Cox M, Peacock TP, Harvey WT, Hughes J, Wright DW; COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium.
SARS-CoV-2 variant evasion of monoclonal antibodies based on in vitro studies. Nat Rev Microbiol.
2023;21(2):112–4 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00809-7, accessed 24 December
2023).
39. Muñoz-Fontela C, Dowling WE, Funnell SGP, Gsell PS, Riveros-Balta AX, Albrecht RA et al. Animal
models for COVID-19. Nature. 2020;586(7830):509–15 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-
020-2787-6, accessed 24 December 2023).
40. Muñoz-Fontela C, Widerspick L, Albrecht RA, Beer M, Carroll MW, de Wit E et al. Advances and
gaps in SARS-CoV-2 infection models. PLoS Pathog. 2022;18(1)e1010161 (https://journals.plos.
org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1010161, accessed 24 December 2023).
41. Fan C, Wu Y, Rui X, Yang Y, Ling C, Liu S et al. Animal models for COVID-19: advances, gaps and
perspectives. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):220 (https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41392-022-01087-8, accessed 24 December 2023).
42. Kadowaki T, Imajou S, Matsumoto N, Takao S, Yorifuji T. Timing of REGEN-COV administration and
progression to severe COVID-19. J Infect Chemother. 2022;28(11):1459–63 (https://www.jiac-j.
com/article/S1341-321X(22)00198-2/fulltext, accessed 24 December 2023).
77
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
43. Bruzzesi E, Ranzenigo M, Castagna A, Spagnuolo V. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies for the
treatment and prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. New Microbiol. 2021;44(3):135–44 (https://
www.newmicrobiologica.org/PUB/allegati_pdf/2021/3/135.pdf, accessed 24 December 2023).
44. Brobst B, Borger J. Benefits and risks of administering monoclonal antibody therapy for coronavirus
(COVID-19). In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan; update 7
May 2023 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574507/, accessed 24 December 2023).
45. ACTIV-3–Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) Study Group. Tixagevimab-cilgavimab
for treatment of patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.
Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10(10):972–84 (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/
PIIS2213-2600(22)00215-6/fulltext, accessed 24 December 2023).
46. Hurt AC, Wheatley AK. Neutralizing antibody therapeutics for COVID-19. Viruses. 2021;13(4):628
(https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/4/628, accessed 24 December 2023).
47. Fung M, Babik JM. COVID-19 in immunocompromised hosts: what we know so far. Clin Infect
Dis. 2021;72(2):340–50 (https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/2/340/5864040, accessed 24
December 2023).
48. Chen P, Bergman P, Blennow O, Hansson L, Mielke S, Nowak P et al. Real-world assessment of
immunogenicity in immunocompromised individuals following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination:
a one-year follow-up of the prospective clinical trial COVAXID. EBioMedicine. 2023;94:104700
(https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(23)00265-7/fulltext,
accessed 24 December 2023).
49. Verderese JP, Stepanova M, Lam B, Racila A, Kolacevski A, Allen D et al. Neutralizing monoclonal
antibody treatment reduces hospitalization for mild and moderate coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19): a real-world experience. Clin Infect Dis. 2022;74(6):1063–9 (https://academic.oup.
com/cid/article/74/6/1063/6309036, accessed 24 December 2023).
50. Utzon AN, Johansen IS, Bang LL, Pedersen RM, Andersen TE, Madsen LW. Viral dynamics of SARS-
CoV-2 in immunocompromised patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29(8):1087.e1–e3 (https://
www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(23)00237-9/fulltext, accessed 24
December 2023).
51. Cowan J, Amson A, Christofides A, Chagla Z. Monoclonal antibodies as COVID-19 prophylaxis
therapy in immunocompromised patient populations. Int J Infect Dis. 2023;134:228–38 (https://
www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(23)00645-8/fulltext, accessed 24 December 2023).
52. ETF warns that monoclonal antibodies may not be effective against emerging strains of SARS-
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
78
Annex 2
55. Zambrano LD, Ellington S, Strid P, Galang RR, Oduyebo T, Tong VT et al. Update: characteristics
of symptomatic women of reproductive age with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by
pregnancy status – United States, January 22–October 3, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.
2020;69(44):1641–7 (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6944e3.htm, accessed 24
December 2023).
56. Villar J, Ariff S, Gunier RB, Thiruvengadam R, Rauch S, Kholin A et al. Maternal and neonatal
morbidity and mortality among pregnant women with and without COVID-19 infection: the
INTERCOVID Multinational Cohort Study. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(8):817–26 (https://jamanetwork.
com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2779182, accessed 24 December 2023).
57. Vousden N, Bunch K, Morris E, Simpson N, Gale C, O’Brien P et al. The incidence, characteristics and
outcomes of pregnant women hospitalized with symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2
infection in the UK from March to September 2020: a national cohort study using the UK Obstetric
Surveillance System (UKOSS). PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0251123 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251123, accessed 24 December 2023).
58. Aabakke AJM, Krebs L, Petersen TG, Kjeldsen FS, Corn G, Wøjdemann K et al. SARS-CoV-2
infection in pregnancy in Denmark – characteristics and outcomes after confirmed infection
in pregnancy: a nationwide, prospective, population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol
Scand. 2021;100(11):2097–110 (https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.14252,
accessed 24 December 2023).
59. Allotey J, Stallings E, Bonet M, Yap M, Chatterjee S, Kew T et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors,
and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic
review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;370:m3320 (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.
m3320.long, accessed 24 December 2023).
60. De Bruin O, Engjom H, Vousden N, Ramakrishnan R, Aabakke AJM, Äyräs O et al. Variations across
Europe in hospitalization and management of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 during the initial
phase of the pandemic: multi-national population-based cohort study using the International
Network of Obstetric Survey Systems (INOSS). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023;102(11):1521–30
(https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.14643, accessed 24 December 2023).
61. Pregnant women: scientific and ethical considerations for inclusion in clinical trials. Guidance
for industry. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration; 2018 (https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Pregnant-Women--Scientific-
and-Ethical-Considerations-for-Inclusion-in-Clinical-Trials.pdf, accessed 24 December 2024).
62. Nooney J, Thor S, de Vries C, Clements J, Sahin L, Hua W et al. Assuring access to safe medicines
in pregnancy and breastfeeding. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2021;110(4):941–5 (https://ascpt.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpt.2212, accessed 24 December 2024).
63. Crispino P, Marocco R, Di Trento D, Guarisco G, Kertusha B, Carraro A et al. Use of monoclonal
antibodies in pregnant women infected by COVID-19: a case series. Microorganisms.
2023:11(8):1953 (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/11/8/1953, accessed 25 March 2024).
64. Chang MH, Cowman K, Guo Y, Bao H, Bernstein PS, Gendlina I et al. A real-world assessment
of tolerability and treatment outcomes of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies administered in
pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226(5):743–5 (https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-
9378(22)00040-0/fulltext, accessed 25 March 2024).
65. Thilagar BP, Ghosh AK, Nguyen J, Theiler RN, Wick MJ, Hurt RT et al. Anti-spike monoclonal antibody
therapy in pregnant women with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obstet
Gynecol. 2022;139(4):616–8 (https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2022/04000/anti_
spike_monoclonal_antibody_therapy_in_pregnant.18.aspx, accessed 25 March 2024).
79
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
66. Manciulli T, Modi G, Campolmi I, Borchi B, Trotta M, Spinicci M et al. Treatment with anti-SARS-
CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies in pregnant and postpartum women: first experiences in Florence,
Italy. Infection. 2022;50(5):1139–45 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s15010-022-
01777-z, accessed 25 March 2024).
67. Levey NH, Forrest AD, Spielman DW, Easley KA, Dude CM, Badell ML. Outcomes of pregnant
patients treated with REGEN-COV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. J. Obstet Gynecol. MFM.
2022;4(5):100673 (https://www.ajogmfm.org/article/S2589-9333(22)00108-2/fulltext, accessed
25 March 2024).
68. Tuan JJ, Sharma M, Kayani J, Davis MW, McManus D, Topal JE et al. Outcomes of pregnant
women exposed to Sotrovimab for the treatment of COVID-19 in the BA.1 Omicron predominant
era (PRESTO). BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23(1):258 (https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/
articles/10.1186/s12879-023-08198-9, accessed 25 March 2024).
69. Edwards KM, Neuzil KM. Understanding COVID-19 through human challenge models. Nat Med.
2022;28(5):903–4 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01778-3, accessed 24 December
2024).
70. Killingley B, Mann AJ, Kalinova M, Boyers A, Goonawardane N, Zhou J et al. Safety, tolerability and
viral kinetics during SARS-CoV-2 human challenge in young adults. Nat Med. 2022;28(5):1031–41
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01780-9, accessed 24 December 2024).
71. Vora SB, Englund JA, Trehan I, Waghmare A, Kong A, Adler A et al. Monoclonal antibody and antiviral
therapy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2023:42(1):32–4
(https://journals.lww.com/pidj/fulltext/2023/01000/monoclonal_antibody_and_antiviral_
therapy_for.6.aspx, accessed 24 December 2024).
72. Mak G, Dassner AM, Hammer BM, Hanisch BR. Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibody
therapies for treatment of COVID-19 in pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2021;40(12):e507–
e509 (https://journals.lww.com/pidj/fulltext/2021/12000/safety_and_tolerability_of_monoclonal_
antibody.31.aspx, accessed 24 December 2024).
73. Bahakel H, Murphy C, Frenck RW Jr, Grimley MS, Marsh RA, Paulsen GC et al. Single site experience
of the use of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 in high-risk pediatric and
young adult patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2022;41(12):985–8 (https://journals.lww.com/pidj/
fulltext/2022/12000/single_site_experience_of_the_use_of_monoclonal.10.aspx, accessed 24
December 2024).
74. Sherman G, Lamb GS, Sharma TS, Lloyd EC, Nagel J, Dandam NN et al. Monoclonal antibody use for
WHO Technical Report Series, No. 1059, 2024
coronavirus disease 2019 in pediatric patients: a multicenter retrospective study. J Pediatric Infect
Dis Soc. 2023:12(3):152–5 (https://academic.oup.com/jpids/article/12/3/152/7079700, accessed
24 December 2024).
75. Santos JL, Bhisitkul D, Carman M, Wilson K, Hasara S, Homa K et al. The use of monoclonal
antibody therapy in pediatric patients with COVID-19: a retrospective case series. Int J Emerg Med.
2022;15(1):9 (https://intjem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12245-022-00414-8, accessed
24 December 2024).
76. State of paediatric medicines in the EU. 10 years of the EU Paediatric Regulation. Report from
the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. COM (2017) 626 (https://health.
ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-11/2017_childrensmedicines_report_en_0.pdf, accessed 24
December 2023).
80
Annex 2
77. COVID-19: developing drugs and biological products for treatment or prevention. Guidance for
Industry. Silver Spring (MD): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug
Administration; 2021 (https://www.fda.gov/media/137926/download, accessed 24 December
2024).
78. Reflection paper on the use of extrapolation in the development of medicines for paediatrics.
London: European Medicines Agency; 2018 (Document EMA/189724/2018; https://www.ema.
europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/adopted-reflection-paper-use-extrapolation-
development-medicines-paediatrics-revision-1_en.pdf, accessed 24 December 2024).
79. Paediatric investigation plans [website]. European Medicines Agency (https://www.ema.europa.
eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/paediatric-medicines/paediatric-investigation-
plans, accessed 24 December 2024).
80. Canada’s approach to drugs for children and youth [website]. Ottawa: Government of Canada
(https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/
pediatrics.html, accessed 24 December 2024).
81
Annex 3
New and replacement WHO international reference
standards for biological products
The provision of global measurement standards is a core normative WHO activity.
WHO international reference standards are widely used by manufacturers,
regulatory authorities and academic researchers in the development and
evaluation of biological products. The timely development of new reference
standards is crucial in harnessing the benefits of scientific advances in new
biologicals and in vitro diagnosis. At the same time, management of the existing
inventory of WHO international reference standards requires an active and
carefully planned programme of work to replace established materials before
existing stocks are exhausted.
The considerations and guiding principles used to assign priorities
and develop the programme of work in this area have previously been set out
as WHO Recommendations.9 In order to facilitate and improve transparency
in the priority-setting process, a simple tool was developed as Appendix 1 of
these WHO Recommendations. This tool describes the key considerations taken
into account when assigning priorities, and allows stakeholders to review and
comment on any new proposals being considered for endorsement by the WHO
Expert Committee on Biological Standardization.
A list of current WHO international reference standards for biological
products is available at: https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-and-policy-
standards/standards-and-specifications/catalogue.
At its meeting held via video conference on 11–14 March 2024, the WHO
Expert Committee on Biological Standardization made the changes shown below
to the previous list. Each of the WHO international reference standards shown in
the table below should be used in accordance with its instructions for use (IFU).
9
Recommendations for the preparation, characterization and establishment of international and other
biological reference standards (revised 2004). In: WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization:
fifty-fifth report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006: Annex 2 (WHO Technical Report Series, No. 932;
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/annex2-trs932, accessed 22 April 2024).
83
WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization Seventy-ninth report
Additions10
Material Unitage Status
Biotherapeutics other than blood products
Golimumab 500 IU/ampoule TNF neutralizing activity First WHO
500 IU/ampoule TNF binding activity International
500 IU/ampoule FcγRIII binding activity Standard
500 IU/ampoule ADCC activity
50 μg/ampoule for therapeutic drug
monitoring
In vitro diagnostics
HIV-1 p24 antigen 44 IU/ampoule First WHO
International
Standard
Lassa virus RNA for No unitage assigned First WHO
NAT-based assays International
Lineages II, III, V and VII Reference Panel
10
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials are held and distributed by the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency, Potters Bar, Herts, EN6 3QG, United Kingdom.
11
Developed by U.S. FDA/CBER and distributed by BEI Resources Repository. Catalogue number NR-59630;
First World Health Organization International Reference Panel (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/bei-
resources-repository).
84
SELECTED WHO PUBLICATIONS OF RELATED INTEREST
Website: https://www.who.int/health-topics/Biologicals#tab=tab_1
ISBN 9789240097971