Influvac Tetra: clinical experience on safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity.

INTRODUCTION: This paper summarizes the safety and immunogenicity data of Influvac Tetra across all age groups starting from 6 months of age, obtained during its clinical development program. AREAS COVERED: The article covers the clinical development program of Influvac Tetra based on five registration studies that included different age groups, different comparators, and participants from Europe and Asia. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed in all studies and in one study, the efficacy of Influvac Tetra was assessed. EXPERT OPINION: Seasonal influenza is a vaccine-preventable disease that can cause serious complications. Several types of influenza vaccines are available, including egg-based (standard dose, high dose, and adjuvanted), cell-based, and recombinant. The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated innovation in the development such as mRNA vaccines. However, these vaccines are still in development and the true value still has to be proven. Regardless of the type of vaccine, it is also important to increase overall vaccination coverage. ECDC recommends that EU Member States implement action plans and policies aimed at reaching 75% coverage in at-risk groups and healthcare workers. Even so, vaccine coverage is still far from recommended.

Enhanced passive safety surveillance of Influvac® and Influvac® Tetra: Results from seven consecutive seasons.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) set out requirements for an enhanced safety surveillance for seasonal influenza vaccines. This paper presents data from the yearly Enhanced Passive Safety Surveillance (EPSS) implemented for Influvac® since season 2014/15 and continued for Influvac® Tetra from season 2018/19 onwards. METHODS: In seven consecutive seasons, an EPSS, aiming for at least 1,000 vaccinees (additional target of 100 vaccinees per five predefined age groups), was conducted in Germany, where market characteristics were expected to allow for a quick generation of representative data. Reactogenicity data in terms of reporting rates, severity and duration of pre-specified local and systemic adverse events of interest (AEI) were collected using response cards, which were completed by vaccinees and returned seven days after vaccination via regular mail. In addition, response cards contained a call center number to enhance reporting of other than pre-specified adverse events. RESULTS: The primary target of at least 1,000 vaccinees was surpassed in all seasons, as was the additional target of 100 adults and elderly. Reactogenicity data were in line with known safety profile of Influvac® and Influvac® Tetra. In children, the target was mostly met in seasons when the EPSS was conducted for Influvac®, but not in seasons when it was conducted for Influvac® Tetra. Although the data for Influvac® Tetra are based on a low number of paediatric vaccinees, they do not indicate a different reactogenicity profile of Influvac® Tetra compared with Influvac®. No signals were identified. CONCLUSION: The EPSS set up for Influvac® and Influvac® Tetra proved a robust and effective methodology to comply with the objectives of EMÁ's guidance on enhanced safety surveillance of seasonal influenza vaccines. Safety data from seven consecutive seasons confirmed the favourable safety profile of both vaccines.