What changes were made to vaccine composition or manufacturing for the 2026 vaccine?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. and international authorities updated seasonal vaccine strain selections for the 2025–2026 respiratory season: influenza recommendations moved several H3N2 strains and—across multiple jurisdictions—shifted some products from quadrivalent to trivalent formulations by dropping B/Yamagata (EU/WHO/Australia reporting), while COVID‑19 vaccines for 2025–2026 were reformulated to target Omicron JN.1‑lineage variants for monovalent or updated products (influenza: WHO/FDA/EMA sources [1] [2] [3]; COVID‑19: WHO/US guidance and product announcements [4] [5] [6]). Sources describe strain substitutions and policy shifts but do not report wholesale manufacturing‑technology overhauls beyond routine platform- and supply‑chain notes [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Influenza: targeted strain swaps, not a manufacturing revolution
Northern‑hemisphere influenza vaccine composition for 2025–2026 mainly changed H3N2 components—egg‑based and cell/recombinant vaccines received different updated H3N2 strains (egg: A/Croatia/10136RV/2023 replacing A/Thailand/8/2022; cell/recombinant: A/District of Columbia/27/2023 replacing A/Massachusetts/18/2022) while H1N1 and B/Victoria strains remained unchanged, according to WHO/technical summaries [1]. The FDA informed U.S. manufacturers of recommended trivalent formulations and strain selection after its March interagency meeting and does not expect supply timing disruptions [2] [7]. Reporting frames these as routine antigen substitutions made months ahead of the season to allow normal production timelines rather than as new manufacturing methods [1] [2].
2. Quadrivalent → trivalent shift: B/Yamagata dropped in several regions
European and Southern‑hemisphere guidance reflects a deliberate step away from four‑strain (QIV) influenza vaccines toward three‑strain (TIV) vaccines because the B/Yamagata lineage has not been detected since March 2020; EMA and WHO task forces endorsed transitioning to trivalent products for 2025/2026, and Australia’s advisory bodies likewise supported TIV use for 2026 [3] [8]. This is a composition decision—omitting an antigen—not a change in basic manufacturing platform, but it does have downstream effects for what antigens manufacturers will produce and package [3] [8].
3. COVID‑19 vaccines: antigen updates to JN.1 lineage for 2025–2026
Global and U.S. guidance and product activity indicate COVID‑19 vaccine antigen composition moved to Omicron JN.1‑lineage–based formulations for the 2025–2026 season. WHO TAG‑CO‑VAC continued monitoring and encouraged updated antigens; U.S. CDC materials and product guides state 2025–2026 formulations are JN.1‑based and recommend updated dosing schedules and product use [4] [5] [6]. Manufacturers announced clinical and regulatory efforts around LP.8.1‑ or JN.1‑adapted monovalent vaccines, showing antigen substitution comparable to the seasonal influenza model rather than a platform change [9] [4].
4. What changed in manufacturing processes — what sources do and don’t say
Available sources describe antigen composition changes and expected supply sufficiency but do not claim large‑scale, simultaneous platform shifts (for example, egg vs. cell vs. recombinant choices remain in use and manufacturers projected standard supplies) [1] [2] [10]. Reporting mentions routine modernization, capacity planning, and CDMO reliance in broader industry analyses, but concrete, widespread manufacturing‑process overhauls tied specifically to the 2025–2026 composition announcements are not documented in these sources [11] [12]. In short: sources report antigen swaps and some product‑type policy shifts (trivalent vs quadrivalent), not wholesale new production technologies [1] [3] [2].
5. Timing, testing and regulatory tradeoffs: speed vs. extra trials
Experts and regulatory reporting note the necessity of early strain decisions because vaccine production requires months; demanding full new clinical trials for every annual antigen change would delay availability and is considered impractical by many regulators and scientists [13]. This tension—rapid antigen updates to match circulating strains versus the limits of annual testing—frames why authorities favor lab‑based antigen matching and existing platform safety data instead of fresh, long clinical programs for yearly composition updates [13].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Regulatory bodies (WHO, FDA, EMA) and manufacturers present antigen updates as routine, data‑driven adjustments to preserve vaccine effectiveness [1] [2] [3]. Independent reviews caution that advisory‑process changes and limited year‑to‑year testing can amplify uncertainty and fuel critiques about guidance and safety oversight; some public‑interest voices push for stricter testing standards even if those would slow deployment [13] [14]. Manufacturers and national agencies emphasize supply continuity and pragmatic risk‑benefit tradeoffs [2] [10].
Limitations: these sources cover influenza and COVID‑19 antigen composition changes and some policy shifts (trivalent vs quadrivalent and JN.1 antigen choice), but they do not report any single, coordinated global overhaul of manufacturing technology tied to the 2025–2026 composition updates; available sources do not mention such a manufacturing‑platform transformation [1] [2] [4].