Close

COVID-19 Fourth Jab Reduces Death By 72% In The Elderly

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Identifying Sex Specific Outcomes Through Real-World Data Analysis

The pharmaceutical sector is increasingly turning to large-scale datasets...
- Advertisement -

According to a recent study conducted by Tel Aviv University and Ben Gurion University of the Negev in conjunction with the Israeli Ministry of Health, the fourth COVID-19 vaccination is effective in preventing the Omicron form from infecting the senior population in long-term care institutions. A task group established by the Israeli government to monitor the prevention and control of COVID-19 in the nation’s geriatric facilities, the Ministry of Health’s Senior Shield programme, involved almost 40,000 elderly Israelis living in institutions in the ground-breaking study. The study’s findings show that senior at-risk adults who receive the fourth dosage of the Pfizer vaccination have a 34% lower risk of getting the Omicron variant, a 64-67% lower risk of needing hospitalisation for COVID, and a 72% lower risk of dying from the virus.

Prof. Nimrod Maimon, until lately the head of the Ministry of Health’s Senior Shield programme, along with programme staff members Omri Bodenheimer, Boris Boltyansky, and Ami Mizrahi, led the study in partnership with Lea Gaon and Zafrira Hillel-Diamant of the School of Public Health at Tel Aviv University. The prominent publication JAMA Internal Medicine published the study.

Prof. Khitam Muhsen from School of Public Health, Tel Aviv University says that his study contrasted 19,687 Senior Shield facility residents who obtained the first three doses of the Pfizer vaccine 4 months or more before the follow-up with 24,088 residents who received the fourth dosage of the vaccine, or the second booster shot. These people are occupants of the approximately 1,000 senior institutions, nursing homes, and assisted living that make up the Senior Shield system of the Ministry of Health. Due to the existence and life circumstances of the institutions, the reality that many residents require assistance with daily activities, and the previous medical conditions that many of the residents suffer from, this population is particularly susceptible to infection, morbidity, and mortality from the coronavirus. 

There was no registered or readily accessible vaccine for the Omicron version, which experienced major alterations in the spike protein that enables the virus to bind to and pierce human cells when it swept across Israel during January and March of this year. Due to the fact that the current COVID-19 vaccinations attack the spike protein, there was considerable debate in Israel and throughout the rest of the world evaluating the efficiency of the current vaccinations against the Omicron strain in general and with regard to a second booster dose in particular. The second booster shot (the fourth dosage of the vaccine) for people 60 years of age and older was first authorised in Israel. The Senior Shield population dataset, which represented the first sizable cohort to receive the second booster, served as the data source for the current study.

Prof. Muhsen emphasises that the methodological issues that are common in observational epidemiological research on the efficacy of COVID vaccinations were successfully resolved in this current study, which was carried out on a nationwide scale. They kept track of the infections, hospitalizations, and mortality rates in these 2 groups throughout the Omicron wave and discovered that the individuals in the group that received the 4th vaccine contracted infections at a rate that was 34% lower than the control group, were hospitalised for mild-to-moderate illness at a rate that was 64% lower than the control group, and were hospitalised for severe illness at a rate that was 67% lower than the control group.

They also had a mortality rate that was 72% lower. These statistics are important since the Senior Shield population is one of the demographics that experiences severe coronavirus morbidity at a rate that is significantly greater than that of the overall population. The fourth vaccination dose, which provided cross-protection against the Omicron variety, is thought to have increased the level of neutralising antibodies. Their research shows the vaccine’s fourth dose to be a considerable advantage, indicating that the State of Israel’s vaccination programme was the right one. It was a prudent option that helped many people live longer to administer the fourth dose of vaccination to at-risk populations. 

Dr. Muhsen continues that based on data of the senior population in care institutions, this work is novel and creative. This study’s average age was 80, as opposed to previous studies’ average age of 72, which was among relatively youthful people drawn from the general community. Additionally, it is exceedingly challenging to compare the morbidity levels of COVID test subjects or vaccine recipients to those of unvaccinated individuals or those who have received three doses of the vaccine because these individuals typically display positive health practises. They don’t know why some of the residents chose not to receive the fourth dose of the vaccination, but irrespective of whether or not they received the shot, both groups in the study completed normal and blind COVID tests in accordance with the same Senior Shield protocol. As a result, the healthy vaccinee effect had less of an impact on the study, and the findings are also applicable to other groups in Israel and other parts of the world.

The research demonstrates that offering booster shots and enhancing the level of antibodies through a vaccine based on the classic COVID-19 strain gives meaningful coverage against the emergence of severe disease even after infectious disease with new versions, including some that are very different from the original, like Omicron, claims Prof. Dani Cohen.

Nimrod Maimon, a professor, adds that the Senior Shield programme, run by the Ministry of Health, has the critical responsibility of safeguarding institutions for people who live outside the home. Because of the quick and efficient vaccination campaigns that were made possible by the project’s database of information about the facilities and their occupants, the number of coronavirus illnesses among these populations has been dramatically reduced. The Senior Shield program’s outstanding outcomes have garnered considerable international acclaim, and health officials from other nations have expressed a desire to learn from it. 

According to Prof. Ron Dagan’s analysis of the study’s findings, immunizations and the application of well-organized systems are crucial in preventing major mortality and morbidity waves in groups at risk.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Identifying Sex Specific Outcomes Through Real-World Data Analysis

The pharmaceutical sector is increasingly turning to large-scale datasets...

Strengthening Clinical Evidence Through Female Cohort Representation

The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a fundamental shift in...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »