Close

FDA Has Approved Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 Shots For Kids

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...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

The first COVID-19 vaccines for newborns and preschoolers were approved by US regulators on Friday, June 17, paving the path for inoculation to begin this week.

The FDA took action after a consensus decision from its advisory council for the shots from Moderna and Pfizer. As a result, children under the age of 5 in the United States, i.e., nearly 18 million children, are qualified for vaccinations. The vaccine campaign in the United States began around 1 1/2 years ago with elderly adults, who were the hardest afflicted by the coronavirus pandemic.

And finally, it is for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make recommendations on how vaccines should be used. On Friday, its independent advisors began discussing the 2-dose Moderna and 3-dose Pfizer vaccinations, with a decision expected a day later. Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is expected to give her final approval soon.

Walensky claimed during a Senate hearing on June 16 that her team was labouring over the Juneteenth federal holiday weekend since they appreciated the gravity of this for American parents.

COVID-19 has resulted in more kid deaths than the flu does each year, according to her.

She truly believes that they need to safeguard small children, as well as everyone else with the vaccine, and especially the elderly. Moderna’s vaccines for school-aged children and teens were also approved by the FDA; the CDC will assess them this week. For those age groups, Pfizer’s injections were the only option.

The Biden administration has been ready to send out the immunizations for small children for weeks, with millions of doses preordered by states as well as tribes, public health clinics, and pharmacies. Manufacturers can begin transporting vaccines throughout the country with the FDA’s emergency use authorization. The shots will begin early this week, but it is unclear how popular they will be. Some families have postponed birthday celebrations, vacations, and visits with grandparents due to a lack of child protection.

In a statement, President Joe Biden said that today is a day of enormous peace for parents and families throughout America. Although young children may not get as sick with COVID-19 as older children and adults, their hospitalisation skyrocketed during the omicron wave, prompting FDA experts to conclude that the advantages of immunisation exceeded the minor risks. Moderna and Pfizer studies revealed that the majority of side effects, such as fever and exhaustion, were minimal.

Dr. Ashish Jha, the White House COVID-19 coordinator, projected that the pace of immunizations for children under the age of five would be far slower than for older groups, and that the government did not have any specific targets for immunisation rates. At the end of the day, Jha told The Associated Press, the goal is very clear- they want to get as many kids inoculated as possible.

According to the FDA, even the youngest children developed high levels of virus-fighting antibodies in tests, equivalent to what is seen in young adults. Moderna’s vaccine was roughly 40% to 50% efficient at preventing infections, but Pfizer’s study had too few cases to provide a credible, exact assessment of efficiency, as per the agency.

Both of these vaccines have been approved with science and safety at the forefront of issues, FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said at a press conference. Parents should feel confident in any vaccine, according to Marks, and should get their kids immunised as quickly as possible, instead of delaying until the fall, when a different viral variety may be raging. He stated that vaccines would be modified to account for this.

He would give his child whichever vaccine the health care professional, or paediatrician, had, Marks added.

Although both brands use the same technology, there are some distinctions between them. The dose of Pfizer’s vaccination for children under the age of five is one-tenth that of the adult dosage. There are three shots required: the first two must be given three weeks apart, and the third must be administered at least two months afterwards. For children under the age of six, Moderna requires two shots, each a fourth of the adult dose, given four weeks apart. The FDA also approved a third dose for children with immunological disorders that increase vulnerability to serious illness, given at least a month after the second shot.

Both immunizations are safe for babies as young as six months old. Moderna’s next step is to test its vaccines on newborns as young as three months old. Pfizer has not finalised plans for vaccines for infants under the age of one year. Children under the age of five are already vaccinated with different brands in a dozen countries, including China.

As soon as she learned of the FDA’s decision, Dr. Toma Omofoye, a Houston radiologist, arranged dates for her 4-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son as soon as she could. Her family has missed out on family functions, indoor performances, and even trips to the grocery store because of the shots, she added. Omofoye claimed her daughter gazed and wandered around like it was Disneyland during a recent drugstore visit, and thanked her.

Omofoye remarked that her heart was crushed in that instant, which is why her heart is so thrilled now. Will other parents, on the other hand, be as keen to get their children vaccinated? Three-quarters of all children in the United States have already been infected, according to some estimates. Since Pfizer’s vaccines became available in November, just about 30% of youngsters aged 5 to 11 have gotten vaccinated.

Officials from the FDA acknowledged the low vaccination rates and stated that the government remains committed to vaccinating more older children and having greater success with younger children. It’s a genuine shame, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf remarked, when one has something free with very few side effects that spares fatalities and hospitalisation. 

According to federal records, approximately 440 children under the age of five have died from COVID-19. The tot-sized immunizations, according to the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle’s Dr. Beth Ebel, would be especially appreciated by kids in day care, where outbreaks sometimes force parents to leave their jobs, adding to the financial burden.

A lot of people will be delighted, and a lot of grandparents will be happy too, Ebel added, because they have missed those babies who did grow up when they were not able to see them.

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...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

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 »