Vaccines will be an important element in mitigating the impact of an influenza pandemic. While research towards developing universal influenza vaccines is ongoing, the current strategy for vaccine supply in a pandemic relies on seasonal influenza vaccine production to be switched over to pandemic vaccines. Understanding how much vaccine could be produced, in which regions of the world and in what timeframe is critical to informing influenza pandemic preparedness. Through the Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines, 2006-2016, WHO promoted an increase in vaccine production capacity and monitors the landscape through periodically surveying influenza vaccine manufacturers. This study compares global capacity for production of influenza vaccines in 2019 with estimates from previous surveys; provides an overview of countries with established production facilities; presents vaccine production by type and manufacturing process; and discusses limitations to these estimates. Results of the current survey show that estimated annual seasonal influenza vaccine production capacity changed little since 2015 increasing from 1.47 billion to 1.48 billion doses with potential maximum annual influenza pandemic vaccine production capacity increasing from 6.37 billion to 8.31 billion doses. However, this figure should be interpreted with caution as it presents a best-case scenario with several assumptions which may impact supply. Further, pandemic vaccines would not be immediately available and could take four to six months for first supplies with several more months needed to reach maximum capacity. A moderate-case scenario is also presented of 4.15 billion doses of pandemic vaccine in 12 months. It is important to note that two doses of pandemic vaccine are likely to be required to elicit an adequate immune response. Continued efforts are needed to ensure the sustainability of this production and to conduct research for vaccines that are faster to produce and more broadly protective taking into account lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccine development.

Should a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the H5N1 virus type currently circulating in birds, become transmissible among humans, an effective vaccine, rapidly available in vast quantities, would be the best tool to prevent high case-fatalities and the breakdown of health and social services. The number of vaccine doses that could be produced on demand has risen sharply over the last few years; however, it is still alarmingly short of the 13 billion doses that would be needed if two doses were required to protect fully the world's population. Most developing countries would be last in the queue to benefit from a pandemic vaccine. The World Health Organization, together with governments, the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders, has been implementing the global pandemic influenza action plan to increase vaccine supply since 2006. Building capacity in developing countries to manufacture influenza vaccine is an integral part of this plan, as well as research and development into more efficacious technologies, e.g. those that allow significant dose-sparing. To this end, the influenza vaccine technology transfer initiative was launched in 2007 and, to date, vaccine manufacturers in 11 developing countries have received grants to acquire the capacity to produce inactivated or live attenuated influenza vaccine for their populations. In addition, a centralized 'hub' has been established to facilitate training in the new technologies for scientists and regulators in the countries. This supplement of Vaccine is devoted to showcasing the interim results of the WHO initiative and the impressive progress made by the developing country manufacturers.

A global shortage and inequitable access to influenza vaccines has been cause for concern for developing countries who face dire consequences in the event of a pandemic. The Global Action Plan for Influenza Vaccines (GAP) was launched in 2006 to increase global capacity for influenza vaccine production to address these concerns. It is widely recognized that well-developed infrastructure to produce seasonal influenza vaccines leads to increased capacity to produce pandemic influenza vaccines. This article summarizes the results of a survey administered to 44 manufacturers to assess their production capacity for seasonal influenza and pandemic influenza vaccine production. When the GAP was launched in 2006, global production capacity for seasonal and pandemic vaccines was estimated to be 500million and 1.5billion doses respectively. Since 2006 there has been a significant increase in capacity, with the 2013 survey estimating global capacity at 1.5billion seasonal and 6.2billion pandemic doses. Results of the current survey showed that global seasonal influenza vaccine production capacity has decreased since 2013 from 1.504billion doses to 1.467billion doses. However, notwithstanding the overall global decrease in seasonal vaccine capacity there were notable positive changes in the distribution of production capacity with increases noted in South East Asia (SEAR) and the Western Pacific (WPR) regions, albeit on a small scale. Despite a decrease in seasonal capacity, there has been a global increase of pandemic influenza vaccine production capacity from 6.2 billion doses in 2013 to 6.4 billion doses in 2015. This growth can be attributed to a shift towards more quadrivalent vaccine production and also to increased use of adjuvants. Pandemic influenza vaccine production capacity is at its highest recorded levels however challenges remain in maintaining this capacity and in ensuring access in the event of a pandemic to underserved regions.

The majority of seasonal influenza vaccines are trivalent, containing two A virus strains (H1N1 and H3N2) and one B virus strain. The co-circulation of two distinct lineages of B viruses can lead to mismatch between the influenza B virus strain recommended for the trivalent seasonal vaccine and the circulating B virus. This has led some manufacturers to produce quadrivalent influenza vaccines containing one strain from each B lineage in addition to H1N1 and H3N2 strains. However, it is also important to know whether vaccines containing a single influenza B strain can provide cross-protectivity against viruses of the antigenically distinct lineage. The aim of this study was to assess in naïve ferrets the potential cross-protective activity of trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (T-LAIV) against challenge with a heterologous wild-type influenza B virus belonging to the genetically different lineage and to compare this activity with effectiveness of quadrivalent LAIV (Q-LAIV) in the ferret model. Ferrets were vaccinated with either one dose of trivalent LAIV containing B/Victoria or B/Yamagata lineage virus, or quadrivalent LAIV (containing both B lineages), or placebo. They were then challenged with B/Victoria or B/Yamagata lineage wild-type virus 28 days after vaccination. The ferrets were monitored for clinical signs and morbidity. Nasal swabs and lung tissue samples were analyzed for the presence of challenge virus. Antibody response to vaccination was assessed by routine hemagglutination inhibition assay. All LAIVs tested were found to be safe and effective against wild-type influenza B viruses based on clinical signs, and virological and histological data. The absence of interference between vaccine strains in trivalent and quadrivalent vaccine formulations was confirmed. Trivalent LAIVs were shown to have the potential to be cross-protective against infection with genetically different influenza B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineages. In this ferret model, quadrivalent vaccine provided higher protection to challenge against both B/Victoria and B/Yamagata lineage viruses. However, T-LAIV provided some cross-protection in the case of a mismatch between circulating and vaccine type B strains. Notably, B/Victoria-based T-LAIV was more protective compared to B/Yamagata-based T-LAIV.

In high-income countries, there is an increased tendency to replace inactivated seasonal trivalent influenza (TIV) vaccines with quadrivalent (QIV) vaccines as these are considered to give a greater public health benefit. In addition, several recent studies from the USA and Europe indicate that replacement with QIV might also be cost-effective; however, the situation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is less clear as few studies have investigated this aspect. The paper by de Boer et al. (2008) describes a dynamic modelling study commissioned by WHO that suggests that in LMICs, under certain conditions, QIV might also be more cost-effective than TIV. In this commentary, we discuss some important aspects that policymakers in LMICs might wish to take into account when considering replacing TIV by QIV. Indeed, from the data presented in the paper by de Boer et al. it can be inferred that replacing QIV for TIV would mean a 25-29% budget increase for seasonal influenza vaccination in South Africa and Vietnam, resulting in an incremental influenza-related health impact reduction of only 7-8% when a 10% symptomatic attack rate is assumed. We argue that national health budget considerations in LMIC might lead decision-makers to choose other investments with higher health impact for a budget equivalent to roughly a quarter of the yearly TIV immunization costs. In addition to an increased annual cost that would be associated with a decision to replace TIV with QIV, there would be an increased pressure on manufacturers to produce QIV in time for the influenza season requiring manufacturers to produce some components of the seasonal vaccine at risk prior to the WHO recommendations for influenza vaccines. Unless the current uncertainties, impracticalities and increased costs associated with QIVs are resolved, TIVs are likely to remain the more attractive option for many LMICs. Each country should establish its context-specific process for decision-making based on national data on disease burden and costs in order to determine whether the health gains out-weigh the additional cost of moving to QIV. For example, immunizing more people in the population, especially those in higher risk groups, with TIV might not only provide better value for money but also deliver better health outcomes in LMICs. Countries with local influenza vaccine manufacturing capacity should include in their seasonal influenza vaccine procurement process an analysis of the pros- and cons- of TIV versus QIV, to ensure both feasibility and sustainability of local manufacturing.

Background.Currently, two genetic lineages of influenza B virus, B/Victoria and B/Yamagata, are cocirculating in humans in various countries. This situation has raised a question regarding the possibility of cross-protection between B components of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) belonging to different lineages. This study aimed to assess in naïve ferrets the potential protective activity of monovalent B-LAIVs against challenge with homologous and heterologous wild-type (WT) influenza B viruses.Methods.Groups of seronegative female ferrets 5-6 months of age were given one dose of monovalent LAIV based on B/Victoria or B/Yamagata lineage virus. Ferrets were challenged 21 days later with B/Victoria or B/Yamagata WT virus. Ferrets were monitored closely for clinical signs and morbidity outcomes including febrile response, body weight loss, nasal symptoms, and level of activity one week prior to vaccination and for three days following vaccination/challenge. Nasal washes were collected three days after vaccination/challenge. Samples of lung tissue were taken three days after challenge. All samples were analyzed for the presence of challenge virus by culturing in embryonated chicken eggs and real-time polymerase chain reaction. Antibody response to vaccination was assessed by routine hemagglutination inhibition assay and microneutralization test.Results.Vaccination led to intensive production of specific neutralizing and antihemagglutinating antibodies to vaccine virus, protected ferrets from homologous challenge infection, and significantly reduced clinical signs and replication of homologous challenge virus. In contrast, cross-lineage serum antibodies were not detected. However, ferrets vaccinated with monovalent B-LAIV had a significantly lower level of heterologous challenge virus in the respiratory tract than those given challenge virus only.Conclusions.Monovalent B-LAIV has the potential to be cross-protective against infection with genetically different influenza lineages. Further studies are required to confirm this effect.