Which manufacturers updated excipient lists for 2023–2025 COVID-19 vaccines and what changed?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Vaccine manufacturers Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Novavax produced updated COVID-19 vaccine formulas for the 2023–2025 seasons; regulators authorized successive strain-updated monovalent versions (XBB‑lineage in 2023–24, then JN.1 or KP.2/JN.1‑derived updates for 2024–25) and in some cases de‑authorized prior lots so providers must switch inventories [1] [2] [3]. FDA documents and manufacturer statements show the changes were primarily to the antigenic composition (which spike variant the vaccine encodes or contains) and, for Novavax, formulation/excipient notes and shelf‑life details appear in FDA briefing materials [1] [4] [2].
1. Who changed what — manufacturers named and roles explained
Pfizer‑BioNTech and Moderna issued monovalent mRNA updates for fall 2023 and again for 2024–25 and beyond; Novavax released protein‑subunit/adjuvanted updates on the same cadence. FDA and CDC materials list these three as the available U.S. products for 2023–24 and 2024–25 and treat the mRNA makers and Novavax as the core suppliers for those seasons [1] [5] [6].
2. The central change: antigen/strain updates, not wholesale ingredient overhauls
Regulatory materials and public health notices make clear the primary change each season was the target antigen — i.e., the vaccine was reformulated to match dominant Omicron sublineages (XBB.1.5 for 2023–24, then JN.1 or KP.2/JN.1‑derived for 2024–25) rather than a major swap of non‑active ingredients. The FDA advised manufacturers to produce monovalent vaccines tailored to the prevailing lineage, and ACIP/CDC recommendations pivoted on those strain choices [1] [7] [8].
3. Where excipient/composition details show up in official records
Detailed excipient, stability and storage notes are preserved in FDA briefing/authorization documents and product fact sheets; the FDA’s Novavax dossier explicitly discusses manufacturing, composition (excipients) and shelf‑life for the 2024–25 formula and documents plans to remove authorization for the earlier 2023–24 formula [4] [2]. That language indicates regulators reviewed excipient information but framed the public change as antigenic (strain) updates supported by stability data [4].
4. Operational consequence: de‑authorization and inventory actions
Several state and federal advisories instructed providers to stop using 2023–24 stock once the 2024–25 authorizations were in place and to return or relabel remaining inventory — a practical change driven by the strain update and EUA revisions rather than a newly hazardous excipient [3] [9]. Novavax guidance explicitly told providers to remove 2023–24 Novavax from storage and reconcile returns [9].
5. Safety labeling and related non‑excipient updates
Beyond antigen updates, FDA actions in 2025 required updated safety warnings (for example myocarditis/pericarditis language for mRNA vaccines) and labeling changes; these are regulatory label updates distinct from excipient changes but relevant to clinicians and recipients when evaluating risks [10].
6. What the sources do not claim about excipients
Available sources do not describe wholesale swaps of inert excipients across manufacturers or widespread introduction of new chemical adjuvants beyond those already in Novavax’s Matrix‑M adjuvant; official records emphasize antigen strain changes and stability/shelf‑life documentation rather than novel excipient ingredients [4] [2]. If you are asking whether a named manufacturer added or removed a specific excipient (for example polysorbate, PEG, sucrose, etc.), the supplied documents do not list that kind of line‑by‑line excipient change in the public summaries [4] [1].
7. Competing perspectives and the hidden stakes
Public health agencies and manufacturer releases present strain updates as routine, evidence‑driven improvements to neutralizing activity and population protection [2] [8]. Critics and some media outlets in later 2025 framed regulatory label tightening and eligibility changes as politically driven and raised concerns about access; those pieces focus on policy and safety‑evaluation process changes rather than excipient chemistry [11] [12] [13]. Readers should note regulatory actions (de‑authorizations, label changes) affect what vials clinics may use and how providers counsel patients even when the ingredient lists remain largely the same [9] [10].
8. What to consult next for exact excipient comparisons
For an authoritative, item‑by‑item list of excipients and any small formulation differences, consult each manufacturer’s current FDA fact sheet or the product package insert and the FDA authorization documents referenced above; the FDA and CDC pages named collect those fact sheets and were the sources that describe antigenic and regulatory changes [1] [4]. Available sources do not publish a consolidated table comparing excipients across every lot/year in the materials provided here [4].
Limitations: this account relies only on the provided documents; they emphasize antigen (strain) updates, regulatory status changes and stability/labeling notes rather than enumerating every excipient alteration per lot [4] [2].