Skip to content

Immunogenicity, Safety, Reactogenicity, Efficacy, Effectiveness and Lot Consistency of FluBlok

Evaluation of the Immunogenicity, Safety, Reactogenicity, Efficacy, Effectiveness and Lot Consistency of FluBlok® Trivalent Recombinant Baculovirus-Expressed Hemagglutinin Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Adults Aged 18 to 49 Years

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00539981
Enrollment
4648
Registered
2007-10-05
Start date
2007-09-15
Completion date
2008-05-28
Last updated
2022-04-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Influenza

Keywords

Influenza

Brief summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a single dose of FluBlok in terms of safety, efficacy and effectiveness in prevention of influenza and influenza-like illness and assess clinical lot-to-lot consistency in manufacturing by evaluating and comparing the immunogenicity of three different lots of FluBlok in a subset of participants.

Detailed description

All currently licensed influenza vaccines in the United States were produced in embryonated hen's eggs. There were several well-recognized disadvantages to the use of eggs as the substrate for influenza vaccine. Eggs required specialized manufacturing facilities and could be difficult to scale up rapidly in response to an emerging need such as a pandemic. It was usually necessary to adapt candidate vaccine viruses for high-yield growth in eggs, a process that could be time consuming, was not always successful, and could select receptor variants that might have suboptimal immunogenicity. In addition, agricultural diseases that affected chicken flocks, and that might be an important issue in a pandemic due to an avian influenza virus strain, could easily disrupt the supply of eggs for vaccine manufacturing. Therefore, development of alternative substrates for influenza vaccine production had been identified as a high-priority objective. One potential alternative method for production of influenza vaccine was expression of the influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques. This alternative avoided dependence on eggs and was very efficient because of the high levels of protein expression under the control of the baculovirus polyhedrin promoter.

Interventions

BIOLOGICALFluBlok®

Dose: 0.5 mL, single dose; Route of administration: intramuscular. Recombinant Trivalent Hemagglutinin Influenza Vaccine containing 45 microgram (mcg) of each hemagglutinin derived from A/Solomon Islands/3/2006 (H1N1), A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2), and B/Malaysia/2506/2004

BIOLOGICALPlacebo

Dose: 0.5 mL normal saline for injection, single dose; Route of administration: intramuscular

Sponsors

Protein Sciences Corporation
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Sanofi
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 49 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Healthy adult aged 18-49 years. * Provided informed consent prior to any study procedures. * Able to comply with all study procedures. * Available for follow-up for the duration of the influenza season. * Women of child-bearing potential must have had a negative urine pregnancy test at the time of randomization and must be willing to use an adequate form of contraception (includes abstinence, condom with spermicide, licensed hormonal contraceptive, intrauterine device \[IUD\], monogamous relationship with a vasectomized partner) during the course of the study.

Exclusion criteria

* Long-term use of oral steroids, parenteral steroids, or high-dose inhaled steroids (greater than \[\>\] 800 mcg/day of beclomethasone dipropionate or equivalent) within the preceding 6 months (Nasal and topical steroids were allowed). * Presence of high-risk conditions or other characteristics were considered to be indication for influenza vaccination, as defined by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. * Acute febrile illness (defined as having a temperature greater than or equal to \[\>=\]100 degrees Fahrenheit) or upper respiratory tract illness within 72 hours of vaccination. Participants with acute febrile illness were rescheduled after fever resolved. * Use of experimental vaccines or any influenza vaccine other than FluBlOk after May 31st 2007 for the 2008 Southern Hemisphere or 2007 to 2008 Northern hemisphere epidemic seasons. * Immunosuppression as a result of an underlying illness or treatment, or used anticancer chemotherapy or radiation therapy within the preceding 36 months. * Any malignancy diagnosed or treated actively during the past five (5) years, with two (2) exceptions. Participant with any history of lymphoproliferative disorder were excluded. However, participants with a history of localized non-melanotic skin cancer were eligible. * Receipt of any other licensed vaccines within 2 weeks (for inactivated vaccines) or 4 weeks (for live vaccines) prior to enrollment in this study. * Receipt of an experimental agent (vaccine, drug, biologic, device, blood product or medication) within 1 month prior to enrollment in this study, or expected to receive an experimental agent during study period. * Receipt of parenteral immunoglobulin or other blood product within the three months prior to study vaccination. * Major psychiatric diagnosis including schizophrenia, bipolar disease or other major depression, or any diagnosis of dementia or associated concomitant medications (e.g., Aricept) used for treating dementia. * Known active human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C infection. * History of alcohol or drug abuse in the last 5 years. * Not available for three or more consecutive weeks during flu surveillance period. * Any acute or chronic condition that, in the opinion of the investigator, would render vaccination unsafe or interfere with the evaluation of responses or render the participant unable to meet the requirements of the protocol.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsWithin 7 days post vaccinationSolicited reaction (reactogenicity event) was an AE that was pre-listed in eCRF, considered to be related to vaccination recorded by the participant by means of a memory aid between the day of vaccination (Day 0) and Day 7 post vaccination. Systemic events included fever, fatigue, shivering, joint pain, muscle pain, headache, and nausea. Fever: \>=100.4 degree Fahrenheit (ºF) to \<101.1ºF; \>=101.2ºF to \<102.2ºF; \>=102.2ºF; Fatigue, shivering, joint pain, muscle pain, headache and nausea: Grade 0: didn't have it at all; Grade 1: noticed it, but it didn't interfere with usual activities at all; Grade 2: had it, and it was bad enough to prevent a significant part of usual activities; and Grade 3: had it, and it prevented most or all of normal activities, or had to see a doctor for prescription medicine. Participants with multiple symptoms in the same category were counted once per category using the symptom with the maximum grade.
Lot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationDay 28 post vaccinationGMTs of anti-influenza antibodies were measured using a single radial immunodiffusion (SRID) assay for 3 strains: A/Solomon Islands \[H1N1\], A/Wisconsin \[H3N2\], and B/Malaysia. Titers were expressed in terms of 1/dilution.
Percentage of Participants With Positive Cell Culture/Culture-Confirmed Influenza Like Illness as Defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC-ILI)14 days post vaccination through and up to 6 monthsCDC-defined ILI was defined as fever (body temperature \>=100ºF oral accompanied by cough and/or sore throat, on the same day or on consecutive days) due to strains represented in the vaccine.
Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsWithin 7 days post vaccinationSolicited reaction (reactogenicity event) was an adverse event (AE) that was pre-listed in electronic case report form(eCRF), considered to be related to vaccination and recorded by participant by means of memory aid. Injection sites reaction included pain,bruising,redness,swelling. Pain and bruising:Grade0: didn't have it at all; Grade1: noticed it, but it didn't interfere with usual activities at all; Grade2: had it, and it was bad enough to prevent a significant part of usual activities; Grade3: had it, and it prevented most or all of normal activities, or had to see a doctor for prescription medicine, Redness and swelling: participants measured largest diameter of any injection site reaction and grade them from 0 to 3, where Grade0: measured less than(\<)10 milliliters(mm); Grade1: larger than or equal to(\>=) 10mm and \<20mm; Grade 2: \>=20mm and \<50mm; Grade3: \>=50mm. Participants with multiple symptoms in same category were counted once per category using symptom with maximum grade
Number of Participants Reporting Unsolicited Adverse EventsFrom Day 0 (post-vaccination) through Day 28 post vaccinationAn AE was defined as any unfavorable and unintended sign (e.g., a clinically significant abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a study vaccine, whether or not considered to be related to the study vaccine. An unsolicited AE was an observed AE that did not fulfill the conditions prelisted (i.e., solicited) in the eCRF in terms of symptom and/or onset post-vaccination, ascertained during follow-up visit or telephone contact up to (and including) the Day 28 contact, whether reported spontaneously by the participant or in response to general questions about current or interim health status.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With Seroconversion to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlok28 days post vaccinationAnti-influenza antibodies were measured using an HAI assay for 3 strains: A/Solomon Islands \[H1N1\], A/Wisconsin \[H3N2\] and B/Malaysia. Seroconversion was defined as a post-vaccination titer of \>=1:40 in participants with undetectable baseline antibody (HI titer = \<1:10) or a \>=4-fold rise in antibody in participants with a baseline titer of \>=1:10, with the achievement of post-vaccination titer of at least 1:40.
Percentage of Participants With Seroprotection to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlok28 days post vaccinationAnti-influenza antibodies were measured using an HAI assay for 3 strains: A/Solomon Islands \[H1N1\], A/Wisconsin \[H3N2\] and B/Malaysia. Seroprotection was defined as a post-vaccination HAI antibody titer of \>=1:40.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

The study was conducted at 24 active centers in the United States from 15-September-2007 to 28-May-2008.

Pre-assignment details

A total of 4648 participants were randomized in the study. Participants were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive FluBlok or Placebo. The FluBlok assignment was further stratified into three lots, A, B and C to assess lot consistency.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)
Participants received a single 0.5 mL dose of FluBlok vaccine from any of the Lots A, B, or C, intramuscularly on Day 0 (Visit 1). Participants were followed up to 6 months after vaccination.
2,344
Placebo
Participants received a single dose of placebo matched to FluBlok, intramuscularly on Day 0 (Visit 1). Participants were followed up to 6 months after vaccination.
2,304
Total4,648

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse events (AE)33
Overall StudyDeath11
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up260251
Overall StudyOther reason-unspecified913
Overall StudyWithdrew consent2214

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicFluBlok (Lots A, B, C)PlaceboTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
2344 Participants2304 Participants4648 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native
7 Participants9 Participants16 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Asian
62 Participants52 Participants114 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Black/African-American
430 Participants447 Participants877 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Latino/Hispanic
250 Participants239 Participants489 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
6 Participants8 Participants14 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Other-unspecified
19 Participants19 Participants38 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
1570 Participants1530 Participants3100 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
1391 Participants1349 Participants2740 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
953 Participants955 Participants1908 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
1 / 2,3441 / 2,304
other
Total, other adverse events
152 / 2,344120 / 2,304
serious
Total, serious adverse events
30 / 2,34434 / 2,304

Outcome results

Primary

Lot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok Vaccination

GMTs of anti-influenza antibodies were measured using a single radial immunodiffusion (SRID) assay for 3 strains: A/Solomon Islands \[H1N1\], A/Wisconsin \[H3N2\], and B/Malaysia. Titers were expressed in terms of 1/dilution.

Time frame: Day 28 post vaccination

Population: Analysis was done on evaluable population that included all participants who had met the study entry criteria and had titers taken at Baseline (Day 0) and after vaccination (Day 28). Data for this outcome measure was planned to be collected and analyzed for each FluBlok lot separately and not planned to be collected for placebo, as pre-specified in protocol.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (GEOMETRIC_MEAN)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Lot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationB/Malaysia182.10 Titer (1/dilution)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Lot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationA/Wisconsin (H3N2)390.34 Titer (1/dilution)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Lot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationA/Solomon Islands (H1N1)346.15 Titer (1/dilution)
PlaceboLot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationB/Malaysia205.95 Titer (1/dilution)
PlaceboLot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationA/Solomon Islands (H1N1)322.95 Titer (1/dilution)
PlaceboLot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationA/Wisconsin (H3N2)192.25 Titer (1/dilution)
FluBlok: Lot CLot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationB/Malaysia215.34 Titer (1/dilution)
FluBlok: Lot CLot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationA/Wisconsin (H3N2)240.01 Titer (1/dilution)
FluBlok: Lot CLot Consistency: Geometric Mean Titers (GMTs) of Influenza Vaccine Antibodies Following FluBlok VaccinationA/Solomon Islands (H1N1)381.00 Titer (1/dilution)
Comparison: A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot Bp-value: 0.00995% CI: [0.85, 1.36]ANOVA
Comparison: A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot Cp-value: 0.0090.91% CI: [0.71, 1.15]ANOVA
Comparison: A/Solomon Islands (H1N1): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot Cp-value: 0.00995% CI: [0.67, 1.07]ANOVA
Comparison: A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot Bp-value: 0.06595% CI: [1.56, 2.64]ANOVA
Comparison: A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot Cp-value: 0.06595% CI: [1.26, 2.11]ANOVA
Comparison: A/Wisconsin (H3N2): FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot Cp-value: 0.06595% CI: [0.62, 1.04]ANOVA
Comparison: B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot Bp-value: 0.01195% CI: [0.69, 1.13]ANOVA
Comparison: B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot A versus FluBlok: Lot Cp-value: 0.01195% CI: [0.65, 1.09]ANOVA
Comparison: B/Malaysia: FluBlok: Lot B versus FluBlok: Lot Cp-value: 0.01195% CI: [0.75, 1.23]ANOVA
Primary

Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) Reactions

Solicited reaction (reactogenicity event) was an adverse event (AE) that was pre-listed in electronic case report form(eCRF), considered to be related to vaccination and recorded by participant by means of memory aid. Injection sites reaction included pain,bruising,redness,swelling. Pain and bruising:Grade0: didn't have it at all; Grade1: noticed it, but it didn't interfere with usual activities at all; Grade2: had it, and it was bad enough to prevent a significant part of usual activities; Grade3: had it, and it prevented most or all of normal activities, or had to see a doctor for prescription medicine, Redness and swelling: participants measured largest diameter of any injection site reaction and grade them from 0 to 3, where Grade0: measured less than(\<)10 milliliters(mm); Grade1: larger than or equal to(\>=) 10mm and \<20mm; Grade 2: \>=20mm and \<50mm; Grade3: \>=50mm. Participants with multiple symptoms in same category were counted once per category using symptom with maximum grade

Time frame: Within 7 days post vaccination

Population: Analysis was performed on safety population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 252 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 215 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 26 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 34 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 02197 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 02195 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 31 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 155 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 32 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 216 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 02181 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 36 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 168 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 01421 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 172 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 1797 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 140 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 23 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 31 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 02172 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 157 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 21 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site bruising- Grade 31 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 02184 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 1177 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 26 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site redness- Grade 31 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 02189 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 134 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 26 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site swelling- Grade 32 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Injection Site (Local) ReactionsInjection site pain- Grade 02050 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic Reactions

Solicited reaction (reactogenicity event) was an AE that was pre-listed in eCRF, considered to be related to vaccination recorded by the participant by means of a memory aid between the day of vaccination (Day 0) and Day 7 post vaccination. Systemic events included fever, fatigue, shivering, joint pain, muscle pain, headache, and nausea. Fever: \>=100.4 degree Fahrenheit (ºF) to \<101.1ºF; \>=101.2ºF to \<102.2ºF; \>=102.2ºF; Fatigue, shivering, joint pain, muscle pain, headache and nausea: Grade 0: didn't have it at all; Grade 1: noticed it, but it didn't interfere with usual activities at all; Grade 2: had it, and it was bad enough to prevent a significant part of usual activities; and Grade 3: had it, and it prevented most or all of normal activities, or had to see a doctor for prescription medicine. Participants with multiple symptoms in the same category were counted once per category using the symptom with the maximum grade.

Time frame: Within 7 days post vaccination

Population: Analysis was performed on safety population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=100.4 to <101.1ºF)8 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=100.4ºF)2238 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=101.2 to <102.2ºF)5 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 1250 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 152 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 212 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 36 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 02183 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 169 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 214 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 36 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 270 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 315 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 229 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 36 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=102.2ºF)4 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 01932 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 278 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 312 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 02202 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 36 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 02033 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 1197 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 236 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 01923 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 1264 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 02143 Participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 194 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 1273 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 266 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=100.4ºF)2188 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=100.4 to <101.1ºF)5 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 174 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=102.2ºF)1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 01898 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 1124 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 1256 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFatigue- Grade 311 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 02160 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 225 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 154 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 02122 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 213 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsNausea- Grade 310 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsShivering- Grade 34 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsFever (>=101.2 to <102.2ºF)6 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 02148 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 34 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 167 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 313 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsJoint pain- Grade 212 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 222 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 02077 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsMuscle pain- Grade 38 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 01877 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Solicited Systemic ReactionsHeadache- Grade 268 Participants
Primary

Number of Participants Reporting Unsolicited Adverse Events

An AE was defined as any unfavorable and unintended sign (e.g., a clinically significant abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a study vaccine, whether or not considered to be related to the study vaccine. An unsolicited AE was an observed AE that did not fulfill the conditions prelisted (i.e., solicited) in the eCRF in terms of symptom and/or onset post-vaccination, ascertained during follow-up visit or telephone contact up to (and including) the Day 28 contact, whether reported spontaneously by the participant or in response to general questions about current or interim health status.

Time frame: From Day 0 (post-vaccination) through Day 28 post vaccination

Population: Analysis was performed on safety population.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Number of Participants Reporting Unsolicited Adverse Events61 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Reporting Unsolicited Adverse Events67 Participants
Primary

Percentage of Participants With Positive Cell Culture/Culture-Confirmed Influenza Like Illness as Defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC-ILI)

CDC-defined ILI was defined as fever (body temperature \>=100ºF oral accompanied by cough and/or sore throat, on the same day or on consecutive days) due to strains represented in the vaccine.

Time frame: 14 days post vaccination through and up to 6 months

Population: Analysis was performed on safety population.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Positive Cell Culture/Culture-Confirmed Influenza Like Illness as Defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC-ILI)0.04 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Positive Cell Culture/Culture-Confirmed Influenza Like Illness as Defined by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC-ILI)0.2 percentage of participants
Comparison: FluBlok versus Placebo95% CI: [-148, 99.5]
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Seroconversion to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlok

Anti-influenza antibodies were measured using an HAI assay for 3 strains: A/Solomon Islands \[H1N1\], A/Wisconsin \[H3N2\] and B/Malaysia. Seroconversion was defined as a post-vaccination titer of \>=1:40 in participants with undetectable baseline antibody (HI titer = \<1:10) or a \>=4-fold rise in antibody in participants with a baseline titer of \>=1:10, with the achievement of post-vaccination titer of at least 1:40.

Time frame: 28 days post vaccination

Population: Analysis was performed on evaluable population. Data for this outcome measure was not planned to be collected and analyzed for placebo group, as pre-specified in protocol.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Seroconversion to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlokA/Wisconsin (H3N2)81 percentage of participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Seroconversion to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlokB/Malaysia52 percentage of participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Seroconversion to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlokA/Solomon Islands (H1N1)78 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Seroprotection to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlok

Anti-influenza antibodies were measured using an HAI assay for 3 strains: A/Solomon Islands \[H1N1\], A/Wisconsin \[H3N2\] and B/Malaysia. Seroprotection was defined as a post-vaccination HAI antibody titer of \>=1:40.

Time frame: 28 days post vaccination

Population: Analysis was performed on evaluable population. Data for this outcome measure was not planned to be collected and analyzed for placebo group, as pre-specified in protocol.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Seroprotection to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlokA/Solomon Islands (H1N1)99 percentage of participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Seroprotection to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlokA/Wisconsin (H3N2)97 percentage of participants
FluBlok (Lots A, B, C)Percentage of Participants With Seroprotection to Influenza Vaccine Antigens After Vaccination With FluBlokB/Malaysia96 percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 14, 2026