This study evaluated the immunogenicity of three licensed egg-based inactivated influenza vaccines among adult healthcare workers in Hong Kong during the 2025/26 influenza season. Vaccines compared were TetrAnflu (Sinovac quadrivalent), Fluarix Tetra (GSK quadrivalent), and Vaxigrip (Sanofi trivalent). The objective was to assess antibody responses in a real-world clinical population and to determine whether responses differed meaningfully between these commonly used products.
The investigation enrolled adult healthcare workers and collected paired pre- and post-vaccination serum samples. Recipients were age- and sex-matched across vaccine groups, with group sizes reported at approximately 30 to 40 participants per vaccine. The analysis accounted for the paired nature of the samples, enabling within-person comparison of antibody titer changes following vaccination.
Sera were tested against the vaccine strains using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assays, the standard serological method for assessing functional antibody responses to influenza antigens. Pre- and post-vaccination HI titers were used to calculate fold rises, the proportion of participants achieving HI titers ≥40, and seroconversion rates according to conventional definitions applied in vaccine immunogenicity studies.
Analyses adjusted for potential confounders including age, sex, and sampling interval between vaccination and post-vaccination blood draw. Primary outcome measures reported were the magnitude of rise in HI antibody titers, the proportion of participants achieving HI titers ≥40 post-vaccination, and seroconversion rates. The adjustment ensured comparisons accounted for demographic and timing differences that could influence measured responses.
After adjustment for age, sex, and sampling interval, the three vaccines induced broadly comparable immunogenicity profiles. The rises in antibody titers were similar across the groups, and there were no marked differences in the proportions of participants achieving HI titers ≥40 or in seroconversion rates for most vaccine strains.
A specific exception was observed for the A(H1N1) antigen: recipients of TetrAnflu demonstrated a superior antibody response to A(H1N1)** compared with the other inactivated vaccine products evaluated. The report does not provide additional strain-specific numerical details beyond this comparative finding.
Overall, the data were interpreted as supporting the practical interchangeability of these egg-based inactivated vaccines for use in influenza vaccination programmes among adult healthcare workers.
In this real-world cohort of healthcare workers, the three licensed egg-based inactivated vaccines produced comparable immunogenicity after statistical adjustment, with the notable finding of a stronger A(H1N1) response following TetrAnflu. These results suggest that influenza vaccination programs could consider these products as largely interchangeable with respect to eliciting antibody responses measured by HI assay. Programmatic decisions may also consider vaccine availability, cost, and other operational factors alongside immunogenicity.
The study provides evidence from a defined occupational group (healthcare workers) during a single season (2025/26). The authors frame these findings as supportive of vaccine interchangeability but do not claim broader effectiveness outcomes such as clinical protection against influenza illness; such outcomes were not reported in the source.
Ethical approval for the study was provided by The University of Hong Kong/Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster Institutional Review Board (ref: UW 20-344). The authors confirm participant consent and adherence to reporting guidelines. Competing interest disclosures note that one author reported consultancy relationships with multiple vaccine and pharmaceutical companies; all other authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.
Funding for the research was declared from the Health and Medical Research Fund and the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, among other institutional support. The preprint is available under a CC-BY 4.0 license and was posted on medRxiv on August 23, 2026. The authors state that all data produced in the study are available upon reasonable request.