Rapid licensure of a new, inactivated influenza vaccine in the United States

Really just a little prick? A meta-analysis on adverse events in placebo control groups of seasonal influenza vaccination RCTs

BACKGROUND

The Corona pandemic and ongoing mass vaccinations raise the question of the nocebo mechanisms involved. Since immunization is usually administered to healthy people as a preventive health measure, adverse events (AE) following immunization are less accepted and could contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Assuming that vaccinees experience nocebo responses, the aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect sizes of solicited adverse events (or assumed reactogenicity) reported in placebo groups in RCTs on seasonal influenza vaccination.

METHODS

Literature search via PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL was conducted considering gray literature. Only RCTs with placebo groups using pharmacologically inert substances (like saline) were included. Quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool. Effect sizes were estimated using a random mixed effects model based on k = 31 studies covering 14,326 participants in placebo groups.

RESULTS

Reported solicited AEs in placebo groups showed significant effect sizes of proportions (ES_p). In k = 13 analyzed placebo groups, 35 % of the participants reported at least one solicited systemic AE (p = 0.007). The most common particular solicited systemic AEs were headache (k = 27; 17 %; p = 0.001), malaise (k = 13; 12 %; p = 0.004), and hyperhidrosis (k = 4; 12 %; p < 0.001) within one week after vaccination.

CONCLUSION

The results show significant solicited AEs in placebo groups, indicating substantial nocebo responses after vaccination. Based on the fact that most vaccination programs include similar groups of healthy people, we expect that comparable nocebo effects occur during other campaigns. Health care professionals should be aware of the nocebo response and take action to prevent or decrease the burden of adverse events following immunization. Fear of side effects must be addressed early in order to diminish vaccine hesitancy. Prospero identifier: CRD42020156287, October 2019.

Immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a Phase III, open-label study of adults in Brazil

The World Health Organization influenza forecast now includes an influenza B strain from each of the influenza B lineages (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) for inclusion in seasonal influenza vaccines. Traditional trivalent influenza vaccines include an influenza B strain from one lineage, but because two influenza B lineages frequently co-circulate, the effectiveness of trivalent vaccines may be reduced in seasons of influenza B vaccine-mismatch. Thus, quadrivalent vaccines may potentially reduce the burden of influenza compared with trivalent vaccines.

In this Phase III, open-label study, we assessed the immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Fluarix™ Tetra) in Brazilian adults (NCT02369341). The primary objective was to assess hemagglutination-inhibition antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 days after vaccination in adults (aged ≥18–60 years) and older adults (aged >60 years). Solicited adverse events for four days post-vaccination, and unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events for 21 days post-vaccination were also assessed.

A total of 63 adults and 57 older adults received one dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine at the beginning of the 2015 Southern Hemisphere influenza season. After vaccination, in adults and older adults, the hemagglutination-inhibition titers fulfilled the European licensure criteria for immunogenicity. In adults, the seroprotection rates with HI titer ≥1:40 were 100% (A/H1N1), 98.4% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria); in older adults were 94.7% (A/H1N1), 96.5% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria). Pain was the most common solicited local adverse events in adults (27/62) and in older adults (13/57), and the most common solicited general adverse events in adults was myalgia (9/62), and in older adults were myalgia and arthralgia (both 2/57). Unsolicited adverse events were reported by 11/63 adults and 10/57 older adults.

The study showed that inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine was immunogenic and well-tolerated in Brazilian adults and older adults.

Immunogenicity and Safety of Trivalent Split Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Korean Adults with Low Pre-Existing Antibody Levels: An Open Phase I Trial

PURPOSE

A phase I clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of newly developed egg-cultivated trivalent inactivated split influenza vaccine (TIV) in Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The TIV was administered to 43 healthy male adults. Subjects with high pre-existing titers were excluded in a screening step. Immune response was measured by a hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay.

RESULTS

The seroprotection rates against A/California/7/2009 (H1N1), A/Perth/16/2009 (H3N2) and B/Brisbane/60/2009 were 74.42% [95% confidence interval (CI): 61.38-87.46], 72.09% (95% CI: 58.69-85.50), and 86.05% (95% CI: 75.69-96.40), respectively. Calculated seroconversion rates were 74.42% (95% CI: 61.38-87.46), 74.42% (95% CI: 61.38-87.46), and 79.07% (95% CI: 66.91-91.23), respectively. There were 25 episodes of solicited local adverse events in 21 subjects (47.73%), 21 episodes of solicited general adverse events in 16 subjects (36.36%) and 5 episodes of unsolicited adverse events in 5 subjects (11.36%). All adverse events were grade 1 or 2 and disappeared within three days.

CONCLUSION

The immunogenicity and safety of TIV established in this phase I trial are sufficient to plan a larger scale clinical trial.

Responses to A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza vaccines in participants previously vaccinated with seasonal influenza vaccine: a randomized, observer-blind, controlled study

Background. Prior receipt of a trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (TIV) can affect hemagglutination inhibition (HI) antibody responses to pandemic influenza vaccines. We investigated the effect of TIV priming on humoral responses to AS03-adjuvanted and nonadjuvanted A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines, the role of AS03 on cell-mediated immune (CMI) responses, and vaccine safety.

Methods. Healthy adults (aged 19–40 years) were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive TIV or saline followed 4 months later by 2 doses, 3 weeks apart, of adjuvanted or nonadjuvanted A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine and followed up to study end (day 507). Pre- and postvaccination responses of HI and neutralizing antibody, CD4⁺/CD8⁺ T cells, memory B cells, and plasmablasts were assessed.

Results. Ninety-nine of the 133 participants enrolled completed the study. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were recorded. In TIV-primed participants, A(H1N1)pdm09-specific antibody and CD4⁺ T-cell and memory B-cell responses to the pandemic vaccine tended to be diminished. Vaccine adjuvantation led to increased responses of vaccine-homologous and -heterologous HI and neutralizing antibodies and CD4⁺ T cells, homologous memory B cells, and plasmablasts.

Conclusions. In healthy adults, prior TIV administration decreased humoral and CMI responses to A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine. Adjuvantation of A(H1N1)pdm09 antigen helped to overcome immune interference between the influenza vaccines. No safety concerns were observed.

Registration. Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT00707967.

A historically-controlled Phase III study in adults to characterize the acceptability of a process change for manufacturing inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine

BACKGROUND

An inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) was recently licenced in the US as a thimerosal-free formulation presented in a pre-filled syringe. A multidose presentation is preferred in some settings due to reduced acquisition and cold storage costs. We assessed the immunogenicity and safety of a thimerosal-containing QIV formulated using a new manufacturing process for presentation in multidose vials.

METHODS

Two Phase III non-randomized studies separately evaluated inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV; 2010-2011; historical control) and a QIV (2011-2012). The QIV contained the same strains as the TIV plus an additional B strain. Both vaccines contained thimerosal to allow multidose presentation: this preservative was added to the QIV during the final formulation step using a new process, whereas it was added to the TIV early in the manufacturing process using an established method. The TIV study included 50 and 70 subjects aged 18-60 and >60 years, respectively; the QIV study included 56 subjects in each age stratum. Immunogenicity was assessed using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assays. Reactogenicity was assessed during the 4-day post-vaccination periods and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) were assessed during the 21-day post-vaccination periods.

RESULTS

The TIV and QIV were immunogenic in both age strata. With the QIV and TIV respectively, the seroconversion rates were 48.2-62.7% and 71.4-83.7% for influenza A, and 33.9-62.5% and 67.3-72.9% for influenza B. With the QIV and TIV respectively, the seroprotection rates were 92.9-98.2% and 98.2-100% for influenza A, and 88.6-100% and 95.9-98.6% for influenza B. Pre-vaccination titers were higher in the QIV versus TIV study which confounds a direct comparison and likely explains the lower seroconversion rates observed in the QIV study. There were no safety concerns raised with TIV or QIV.

CONCLUSIONS

The thimerosal-containing QIV formulated using a new process was immunogenic, conforming to regulatory acceptance criteria, with a reactogenicity and safety profile in line with the TIV manufactured using a licensed process. These results support acceptability of a manufacturing process change in which the thimerosal preservative is added at the point at which batches are filled into multidose vials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

These trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01440387; NCT01153685.

A randomized controlled study to evaluate the immunogenicity of a trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccine at two dosages in children 6 to 35 months of age

The trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine Fluarix™ is licensed in the US for adults and children from 3 years old. This randomized observer-blind study (NCT00764790) evaluated Fluarix™ at two doses; 0.25 ml (Flu-25) and 0.5 ml (Flu-50) in children aged 6-35 months. The primary objective was to demonstrate immunogenic non-inferiority vs. a control vaccine (Fluzone®; 0.25 ml). Children received Flu-25 (n = 1107), Flu-50 (n = 1106) or control vaccine (n = 1104) at Day 0 and for un-primed children, also on Day 28. Serum hemagglutination-inhibition titers were determined pre-vaccination and at Day 28 (primed) or Day 56 (un-primed). Non-inferiority was assessed by post-vaccination geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio, (upper 95% confidence interval [CI] ≤ 1.5) and difference in seroconversion rate (upper 95% CI ≤ 10%). Reactogenicity/safety was monitored. The immune response to Flu-50 met all regulatory criteria. Indicated by adjusted GMT ratios [with 95% CI], the criteria for non-inferiority of Flu-50 vs. control vaccine were reached for the B/Florida strain (1.13 [1.01-1.25]) but not for the A/Brisbane/H1N1 (1.74 [1.54-1.98]) or A/Uruguay/H3N2 (1.72 [1.57-1.89]) strains. In children aged 18-35 months similar immune responses were observed for Flu-50 and the control vaccine. Flu-50 induced a higher response than Flu-25 for all strains. Temperature (≥ 37.5°C) was reported in 6.2%, 6.4%, and 6.6% of the Flu-25, Flu-50, and control group, respectively. Reactogenicity/safety endpoints were within the same range for all vaccines. In children aged 6-35 months, immune responses with Flu-50 fulfilled regulatory criteria but did not meet the pre-defined criteria for non-inferiority vs. control. This appeared to be due to differences in immunogenicity in children aged<18 months.

Quantitative review of antibody response to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines

BACKGROUND

Seasonal influenza epidemics are associated with significant morbidity and mortality each year, particularly amongst young children and the elderly. Seasonal influenza vaccines have been available for decades, yet influenza remains a major public health threat in the US, sparking interest in studies evaluating the effectiveness of vaccination.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to identify determinants of serological responses to inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines including number of doses, adjuvant, and subject characteristics.

METHODS

We reviewed 60 articles published between 1987 and 2006. We used weighted multiple logistic regression and random-effects models to evaluate how seroconversion and seroprotection rates varied with host and vaccine factors.

RESULTS

Both children and seniors tended to have poorer immune responses compared to adults whereas use of adjuvant and a second vaccine dose tended to improve immune response. Pre-vaccination serological status had a large impact on the immune response to vaccination. We found substantial heterogeneity among studies, even with similar population settings and vaccination regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should stratify their results by pre-vaccination serological status in an effort to produce more precise summary estimates of vaccine response.

Immunologic non-inferiority of a newly licensed inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine versus an established vaccine: a randomized study in US adults

A trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluarix (™) , GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) was licensed under US accelerated approval regulations. We performed a randomized, observer-blind, post-approval study to demonstrate its immunological non-inferiority versus an established US-licensed vaccine (primary endpoint). Adult (including elderly) subjects received a single injection of newly-licensed vaccine (n = 923) or established vaccine (n = 922). Serum hemagglutination-inhibition titers were determined pre-vaccination and 21-28 days after vaccination. Non-inferiority was assessed by post-vaccination geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (upper 95% confidence interval [CI] ≤ 1.5) and difference in seroconversion rate (upper 95% CI ≤ 0.1) for all three vaccine strains. Safety was monitored for 6 months. The newly-licensed vaccine was non-inferior to the established vaccine in all subjects (≥ 18 years) and in elderly subjects (≥ 65 years). Adjusted GMT ratios (established/newly-licensed) against the H1N1, H3N2 and B strains were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.73), 0.93 (0.83, 1.04) and 1.13 (1.03, 1.25) for all subjects and 0.75 (0.67, 0.85), 0.95 (0.82, 1.09) and 1.13 (1.00, 1.27) for elderly subjects. Corresponding values for the differences in seroconversion rate (established minus newly-licensed) were -0.12 (-0.16, -0.07), -0.02 (-0.06, 0.03) and 0.01 (-0.04, 0.06) for all subjects and -0.11 (-0.16, -0.05), -0.02 (-0.07, 0.04) and 0.02 (-0.04, 0.08) for elderly subjects. The most common adverse events with both vaccines were injection site pain, fatigue and headache, and no serious adverse events or deaths were considered related; there were no clinically relevant differences between the vaccines. In conclusion, the newly-licensed vaccine was well tolerated and immunologically non-inferior to the established vaccine for all three vaccine strains in the whole population and the elderly.

Inactivated split-virion seasonal influenza vaccine (Fluarix): a review of its use in the prevention of seasonal influenza in adults and the elderly

Fluarix is a trivalent, inactivated, split-virion influenza vaccine containing 15 microg haemagglutinin from each of the three influenza virus strains (including an H1N1 influenza A virus subtype, an H3N2 influenza A virus subtype and an influenza B virus) that are expected to be circulating in the up-coming influenza season. Fluarix is highly immunogenic in healthy adults and elderly, and exceeds the criteria that make it acceptable for licensure in various regions (including the US and Europe). In a large, phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in the US (2004/2005) in subjects aged 18-64 years, postvaccination seroconversion rates against the H1N1, H3N2 and B antigens were 60-78% and respective postvaccination seroprotection rates were 97-99% in Fluarix recipients. Another phase III trial conducted in the US (2005/2006) established the noninferiority of Fluarix versus another trivalent inactivated influenza virus vaccine in subjects aged >or=18 years, including a subgroup of elderly subjects. In annual European registration trials, Fluarix has consistently exceeded the immunogenicity criteria set by the EU Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use for adults and the elderly. Fluarix demonstrated immunogenicity in small, open-label studies in at-risk subjects. During a year when the vaccine was well matched to the circulating strain, Fluarix demonstrated efficacy against culture-confirmed influenza A and/or B in a placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18-64 years. In addition, Fluarix vaccination of pregnant women demonstrated efficacy in reducing the rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza in the infants and reducing febrile respiratory illnesses in the mothers and their new-born infants in a randomized trial. Fluarix was generally well tolerated in adults and the elderly in well designed clinical trials and in the annual European registration trials, with most local and general adverse events being transient and mild to moderate in intensity. The most common adverse reactions in recipients of Fluarix were pain, redness or swelling at the injection site, muscle aches, fatigue, headache and arthralgia. In conclusion, Fluarix is an important means of decreasing the impact of seasonal influenza viruses on adults and the elderly.

A Phase III evaluation of immunogenicity and safety of two trivalent inactivated seasonal influenza vaccines in US children

BACKGROUND

This study (NCT00383123) compared the immunogenicity and safety of 2 trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines: Fluarix [GlaxoSmithKline (study vaccine)] and Fluzone [Sanofi Pasteur (control vaccine)] in children 6 months to <18 years.

METHODS

Children, stratified by age and randomized, received either study (N = 2115) or control vaccine (N = 1210) at day 0 (and day 28 for previously unvaccinated children younger than 9 years). Children 6 months to <5 years comprised the according-to-protocol (ATP) cohort for immunogenicity, whereas the reactogenicity/safety group included all children 6 months to <18 years. The study aimed to demonstrate immunologic noninferiority of study vaccine versus control vaccine.

RESULTS

For children 6 months to <5 years, the predefined noninferiority criteria were not reached, mainly due to the differences in immune response in children 6 months to <3 years with no influenza vaccination history. All reactogenicity/safety endpoints were within the same range in both vaccine groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The study vaccine demonstrated a good safety and reactogenicity profile; however, it did not meet the predefined noninferiority criteria in children 6 months to <5 years. The study vaccine was as immunogenic as the control vaccine in children aged 3 to <5 years.

A predictive model of the economic effects of an influenza vaccine adjuvant for the older adult (age 65 and over) population

Immunosenescence decreases influenza vaccine efficacy in older adults (age 65 and over). Strategies such as vaccine adjuvants are being developed to overcome immunosenescence. Our computer simulation model represented the decision to give an older adult either standard influenza vaccine or adjuvanted influenza vaccine and found the adjuvanted vaccine to be dominant in many scenarios, resulting in lowered cost and greater effectiveness. An adjuvanted vaccine that is 100% effective in overcoming immunosenescence remained dominant until its cost exceeded the standard vaccine cost by $65. In a single influenza season, the adjuvant would prevent 496,533 influenza cases, 171,981 hospitalizations, and 70,429 deaths.

Challenge of conducting a placebo-controlled randomized efficacy study for influenza vaccine in a season with low attack rate and a mismatched vaccine B strain: a concrete example

Background

Our aim was to determine the efficacy of a trivalent inactivated split virus influenza vaccine (TIV) against culture-confirmed influenza A and/or B in adults 18 to 64 years of age during the 2005/2006 season in the Czech Republic.

Methods

6203 subjects were randomized to receive TIV (N = 4137) or placebo (N = 2066). The sample size was based on an assumed attack rate of 4% which provided 90% power to reject the hypothesis that vaccine efficacy (VE) was ≥ 45%. Cases of influenza like illness (defined as fever (oral temperature ≥37.8°C) plus cough and/or sore throat) were identified both by active (biweekly phone contact) and passive (self reporting) surveillance and nasal and throat swabs were collected from subjects for viral culture.

Results

TIV was well tolerated and induced a good immune response. The 2005/2006 influenza season was exceptionally mild in the study area, as it was throughout Europe, and only 46 culture-confirmed cases were found in the study cohort (10 influenza A and 36 influenza B). Furthermore among the B isolates, 35 were identified as B/Hong Kong 330/2001-like (B/Victoria/2/87 lineage) which is antigenically unrelated to the vaccine B strain (B/Yamagata/16/88 lineage). The attack rate in the vaccine group (0.7%) was not statistically significantly different from the attack rate in the placebo group (0.9%).

Conclusion

Due to the atypical nature of the influenza season during this study we were unable to assess TIV efficacy. This experience illustrates the challenge of conducting a prospective influenza vaccine efficacy trial during a single season when influenza attack rates and drift in circulating strains or B virus lineage match can be difficult to estimate in advance.

Trial Registration

Clinical trial registery: NCT00197223.

A vaccine manufacturer's approach to address medical needs related to seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses

Vaccination is considered to be one of the most effective tools to decrease morbidity as well as mortality caused by influenza viruses. For the prevention of seasonal influenza, Fluarix and FluLaval have been marketed since 1987 and 1992, respectively. Both vaccines have consistently been shown to meet or exceed the regulatory criteria for immunogenicity against the three strains H1N1, H3N2 and B, have a good safety profile, and are recommended for vaccinating children and adults of all ages. For the prevention of pandemic influenza, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has obtained licensure of a pre-pandemic vaccine, Prepandrix. This split-virus H5N1 adjuvanted with AS03, a proprietary oil-in-water emulsion-based adjuvant system, has demonstrated broad immunity against drifted H5N1 strains and has been shown to be effective in preventing mortality and viral shedding in animal studies. The influenza vaccine portfolio of GSK addresses specific medical needs related to seasonal or pandemic influenza viruses, which remain an important public health threat worldwide.

Clinical data on Fluarix: an inactivated split seasonal influenza vaccine

Influenza viruses cause annual winter epidemics in temperate regions, with significant morbidity, mortality and economical impact. Fluarix is a split, trivalent, inactivated vaccine, manufactured from highly purified, egg-grown influenza viruses by GlaxoSmithKline. In 2005, Fluarix underwent accelerated approval for use in adults by the US FDA following a US-based, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that established its safety and immunogenicity in adults. The vaccine has been licensed in Europe since 1992 for all age groups. Multiple registration trials in all age groups in Europe have demonstrated that the vaccine was safe and well tolerated and of immunogenicity standards that met the requirements of the European Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. There are no published clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness or efficacy of Fluarix against influenza and its complications. Currently, Fluarix plays an important role in the diversification of the supply chain of influenza vaccine to the community. However, vaccines with improved immunogenicity in at-risk populations, such as the elderly, and with less reliance on growth in eggs, as well as the inherent demanding timelines, are needed to enhance the control of influenza.

Immunogenicity, safety and consistency of new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine

To augment the available influenza vaccine supply, a phase III study was conducted to evaluate the immunogenicity, safety, and consistency of a new trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine manufactured by CSL Limited. Healthy adults (ages 18-64) were randomized to receive either a single dose of TIV from multi-dose vials with thimerosal, TIV from pre-filled syringes without thimerosal, or placebo. Of the TIV recipients, 97.8% achieved a post-vaccination titer > or =40 against H1N1, 99.9% against H3N2 component, and 94.2% against influenza B. Few local or systemic adverse events were noted after vaccination with either TIV presentation. TIV was well tolerated and immunogenic.

Safety and reactogenicity profile of an adjuvanted H5N1 pandemic candidate vaccine in adults within a phase III safety trial

A multicentre, randomized, phase III clinical trial in 5071 healthy adults was conducted to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of a 15 microg HA dose of a candidate oil-in-water emulsion-based adjuvant system (AS)-adjuvanted split-virion H5N1 (AS-H5N1) vaccine compared to a licensed seasonal influenza vaccine, Fluarix.(1) Stringent criteria were used to evaluate adverse events and reactogenicity profile. Overall, 96.7% of the 5071 vaccinated subjects completed the study. Significantly more participants in the AS-H5N1 vaccine group reported general or local adverse events. Pain was the most common symptom in both treatment groups. Less than 1% of subjects withdrew from the study due to adverse events and no withdrawals were due to serious adverse events related to vaccination. The safety and reactogenicity profile of the AS-H5N1 candidate vaccine can be considered clinically acceptable in the context of its use against pandemic influenza.

Influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies in birds

Although it is well accepted that the present Asian H5N1 panzootic is predominantly an animal health problem, the human health implications and the risk of human pandemic have highlighted the need for more information and collaboration in the field of veterinary and human health. H5 and H7 avian influenza (AI) viruses have the unique property of becoming highly pathogenic (HPAI) during circulation in poultry. Therefore, the final objective of poultry vaccination against AI must be eradication of the virus and the disease. Actually, important differences exist in the control of avian and human influenza viruses. Firstly, unlike human vaccines that must be adapted to the circulating strain to provide adequate protection, avian influenza vaccination provides broader protection against HPAI viruses. Secondly, although clinical protection is the primary goal of human vaccines, poultry vaccination must also stop transmission to achieve efficient control of the disease. This paper addresses these differences by reviewing the current and future influenza vaccines and vaccination strategies in birds.

Fluarix, inactivated split-virus influenza vaccine

Influenza is a potentially fatal respiratory infection resulting from several influenza virus strains. It causes annual epidemics of disease for which vaccination is the cornerstone of public health policy. The inadequacies of vaccine supply in the US during the 2004 influenza season revealed the deficiencies of current vaccine development and delivery. One outcome of this was the accelerated approval of an inactivated split-virus influenza vaccine, Fluarix. This paper reviews the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of this vaccine, and makes recommendations for the incorporation of Fluarix into the public health framework alongside other similar vaccines. Other directions to explore in an effort to secure future vaccine supply are considered.