Have Pfizer and Moderna released all study data for flu vaccines

1. Pfizer says it put Phase 3 results into the public record

Journalistic coverage and press summaries state Pfizer released the full data from its Phase 3 trial showing its mRNA flu candidate outperformed a standard quadrivalent vaccine in a large study of more than 18,000 adults, with reporting of a 34.5% greater efficacy and prevention estimates of roughly 60–67% vs. 44–54% for the comparator in some write‑ups ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. Multiple outlets note the trial spanned sites in the U.S., South Africa and the Philippines and was funded by Pfizer ^{[2] [4]}.

2. What "released data" means in coverage versus regulatory filings

News stories and analyses emphasize that Pfizer published trial results and detailed efficacy numbers; reporting does not specify the full scope of raw datasets, patient‑level data, clinical study reports, or regulatory briefing packages versus peer‑reviewed journal supplements ^{[3] [1]}. The sources say the company “released the full data” in the sense of trial outcomes and key analyses rather than enumerating exactly which underlying datasets were made available for independent reanalysis ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Moderna’s status: reporting indicates setbacks and less clear public disclosure

Coverage notes Moderna has pursued an mRNA flu candidate but experienced setbacks, and that it previously missed against influenza B in trials — the sources discuss Moderna’s challenges but do not document a comprehensive public release of all study data comparable to Pfizer’s Phase 3 disclosure ^{[2] [3]}. Therefore, current reporting in this collection does not confirm that Moderna has released all study data; available sources do not mention that level of disclosure for Moderna ^[2].

4. Independent context: efficacy, side effects, funding and potential conflicts

Independent reporting highlights that Pfizer funded the trial and that authors included company researchers; outlets report the mRNA shot produced more side effects at a higher rate than the comparator while showing stronger efficacy against mainly influenza A strains — these are essential context points when evaluating the release and interpretation of data ^{[4] [2] [3]}. The funding source and authorship are relevant to readers assessing potential sponsor influence on reporting and emphasis ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Why strain dynamics and timing matter to interpreting trial results

Reporting reminds readers that flu strain selection and shifting viral genetics affect vaccine performance: many cases in the Pfizer trial were caused by influenza A, and other season‑to‑season shifts (for example, emergence of H3N2 subclade K) can alter real‑world effectiveness after trials are concluded ^{[3] [5]}. This limits how directly trial efficacy translates to future seasons ^[5].

6. What is and isn’t documented in the sources — key limitations

The assembled reporting documents Pfizer’s Phase 3 results release and media summaries ^{[1] [3] [2]} but does not provide a checklist of exactly which documents (raw datasets, clinical study reports, regulatory submissions) were made public. The sources do not confirm a matched, full public data release from Moderna; available sources do not mention Moderna releasing all study data ^[2]. Readers should treat “released full data” in news coverage as shorthand for extensive trial results rather than guaranteed availability of every underlying file.

7. Bottom line for readers and next steps to verify

If you want documentary proof beyond media summaries, check Pfizer and Moderna regulatory filings (FDA or peer‑review supplements) and data repositories; the articles here cite Pfizer’s public Phase 3 results and note Moderna’s trial setbacks but do not reproduce full datasets ^{[3] [2] [1]}. For claims about “all study data” from either company, the current reporting is clear only about Pfizer’s Phase 3 result release and is silent on a comprehensive Moderna data release ^{[3] [2]}.