CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT06518577Updated Jul 28, 2026Results posted

Immunogenicity of Influenza Vaccinations

A Phase 4 interventional study of Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) and Flublok® (RIV3) in Influenza, sponsored by Duke University. Completed at 7 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 64 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-28.

Sponsored by Duke University · Phase 4, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
606
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 64 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This study is a randomized immunogenicity study in an enrolled cohort with active surveillance for influenza-like illness (ILI). During this study, participants will be randomly assigned to receive an approved cell culture-based influenza vaccine (Flucelvax®) versus a licensed comparator influenza vaccine (Flublok®). Blood samples from participants will be collected for measurement of biomarkers of immune response at baseline (visit 1; day 1), post-vaccination (visit 2; day 29), and post-season (visit 3; day 181). Participants will be asked if they wish to also provide saliva specimens at baseline (visit 1; day 1), post-vaccination (visit 2; day 29), and post-season (visit 3; day 181). Serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and plasma samples will be isolated from whole blood and tested for biomarkers of vaccine immunogenicity, and duration of antibody responses.

Participants will receive electronic surveys via email or text message weekly asking about changes in health status and new ILI symptoms; those reporting illness may be asked to provide a respiratory swab for laboratory testing for influenza and other respiratory viruses and up to 2 additional blood draws (acute [\<10 days after symptom onset] and convalescent [28 days after acute visit if lab-confirmed positive for influenza]).

02

Conditions studied

  • Influenza

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Influenza
  • Immunogenicity
03

In context

Influenza, Human

2,214 studies on the registry are indexed under Influenza, Human; 164 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 606 is above the median of 238 across 1,853 interventional studies indexed under Influenza, Human.

Browse Influenza, Human studies →

Lead sponsor

Duke University is the lead sponsor of 2,025 studies on the registry; 275 are open to participants now.

Of its 194 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 159 (82%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 64 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  1. Adults aged 18-64 years that have not received the current season's influenza vaccine
  2. English literate
  3. Email or text message capability for weekly follow-up
  4. Intention of receiving influenza vaccine based on ACIP-CDC guidelines
  5. Willing to provide written/electronic informed consent
  6. Intention of being available for entire study period and able to complete all relevant study procedures, including follow-up phone calls and clinic visits

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Receipt of the current season's influenza vaccine (receipt after July 1, 2024)
  2. History of severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of any influenza vaccine or to an influenza vaccine component
  3. Receipt of any licensed or investigational live vaccine within 6 weeks or non-live vaccine within 2 weeks prior to enrollment in this study or planning receipt of any vaccines between visits 1 and 2 of the study (approximately within 4 weeks after the receipt of study-administered vaccine)
  4. History of Guillain-Barré syndrome
  5. Currently pregnant, planning to become pregnant within the first three months of the study per participant self-report
  6. Bleeding diathesis or condition associated with prolonged bleeding that would, in the opinion of the investigator, contraindicate intramuscular injection.
  7. Any condition which, in the opinion of the investigators, may pose a health risk to the participant or interfere with the evaluation of the study objectives

Temporary Delay Criteria (Visit 1)

1. History of febrile illness (> 100.0°F or 37.8°C) within the past 72 hours prior to vaccine administration

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
606 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)

    Participants will receive Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) at Visit 1.

    Biological: Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)

  • Experimental
    Flublok® (RIV3)

    Participants will receive Flublok® (RIV3) at Visit 1.

    Biological: Flublok® (RIV3)

Interventions

  • BiologicalFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)

    Participants will receive Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)

  • BiologicalFlublok® (RIV3)

    Participants will receive Flublok® (RIV3)

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percent of Participants With a Seroprotective HAI Titer (≥1:40)

    The percent of participants with a seroprotective antibody titer (≥1:40) for each influenza vaccine antigen was determined. Cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria were measured by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), while A(H3N2) titers were measured by microneutralization.

    Time frame: Visit 2 (Days 28-42, Post-vaccination)

  2. The Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) of HAI Antibody

    The geometric mean antibody titer (GMT) for each influenza vaccine antigen in the 2024-2025 influenza season. GMTs were calculated as the anti-log of the mean of log-transformed titers. Cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria were assessed by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), whereas A(H3N2) was assessed by microneutralization.

    Time frame: Up to Visit 2 (Days 28-42, Post-vaccination)

  3. Percent of Participants Demonstrating Seroconversion From Baseline

    The percent of participants in each vaccination group demonstrating seroconversion from Baseline at Day 29 (defined as a titer ≥1:40 at Day 29 if the baseline titer is \<1:10, or a ≥4-fold rise in titer at Day 29 if the baseline titer is ≥1:10) for each vaccine antigen. Viruses tested were cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), and A(H3N2) using microneutralization.

    Time frame: Day 29 post-vaccination assessment (Visit 2; scheduled for Day 29 with an allowable window of Days 28-42 post-vaccination)

  4. Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) in HAI Titer From Baseline

    The geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in antibody titers from Baseline to Day 29 for each influenza vaccine antigen. Cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria were assessed using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), whereas A(H3N2) was assessed using microneutralization.

    Time frame: Day 29 post-vaccination assessment (Visit 2; scheduled for Day 29 with an allowable window of Days 28-42 post-vaccination)

07

Results

Posted Jul 28, 2026

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok® (RIV3)
Started301298
Completed299296
Not completed22
Withdrew: Protocol violation22

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercent of Participants With a Seroprotective HAI Titer (≥1:40)

The percent of participants with a seroprotective antibody titer (≥1:40) for each influenza vaccine antigen was determined. Cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria were measured by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), while A(H3N2) titers were measured by microneutralization.

Time frame:
Visit 2 (Days 28-42, Post-vaccination)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percent of Participants With a Seroprotective HAI Titer (≥1:40)
percentage of participantsFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok® (RIV3)
A(H1N1)pdm0981.3 (70.7 to 88.7)88.2 (78.6 to 93.8)
A(H3N2)82.7 (72.2 to 89.7)94.7 (86.6 to 98.0)
B/Victoria74.7 (63.5 to 83.3)86.8 (77.1 to 92.8)
Statistical analysis
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.224 (Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI titer (≥1:40) pre- and post- immunization.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.022 (Number of participants in each vaccination group with a MN titer (≥1:40) pre- and post- immunization.)Microneutralization was used for H3N2 immunogenicity assessment, as it more sensitively detects responses to cell-grown H3N2 influenza viruses.
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.057 (Number of participants in each vaccination group with a seroprotective HAI titer (≥1:40) pre- and post- immunization.)
PrimaryThe Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) of HAI Antibody

The geometric mean antibody titer (GMT) for each influenza vaccine antigen in the 2024-2025 influenza season. GMTs were calculated as the anti-log of the mean of log-transformed titers. Cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria were assessed by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), whereas A(H3N2) was assessed by microneutralization.

Time frame:
Up to Visit 2 (Days 28-42, Post-vaccination)
Reported as:
Geometric mean · titers
The Geometric Mean Titer (GMT) of HAI Antibody
titersFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok® (RIV3)
A(H1N1)pdm09: Pre-vaccine31.0 (22.8 to 42.2)24.4 (17.8 to 33.6)
A(H1N1)pdm09: Post-vaccine101.2 (74.1 to 138.2)157.1 (116.1 to 212.6)
A(H3N2): Pre-vaccine28.6 (21.1 to 38.8)29.2 (21.3 to 40.1)
A(H3N2): Post-vaccine110.0 (82.8 to 148.8)349.7 (259.7 to 470.8)
B/Victoria: Pre-vaccine22.1 (17.1 to 28.7)29.1 (22.3 to 38.2)
B/Victoria: Post-vaccine73.9 (55.9 to 97.9)132.7 (99.7 to 176.5)
Statistical analysis
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = 0.294 (GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = 0.042 (GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = 0.920 (GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = <0.001 (95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = 0.138 (GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = 0.004 (GMTs and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers.)
PrimaryPercent of Participants Demonstrating Seroconversion From Baseline

The percent of participants in each vaccination group demonstrating seroconversion from Baseline at Day 29 (defined as a titer ≥1:40 at Day 29 if the baseline titer is \<1:10, or a ≥4-fold rise in titer at Day 29 if the baseline titer is ≥1:10) for each vaccine antigen. Viruses tested were cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), and A(H3N2) using microneutralization.

Time frame:
Day 29 post-vaccination assessment (Visit 2; scheduled for Day 29 with an allowable window of Days 28-42 post-vaccination)
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percent of Participants Demonstrating Seroconversion From Baseline
percentage of participantsFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok® (RIV3)
A(H1N1)pdm0930.7 (21.2 to 42.1)68.4 (57.0 to 78.0)
A(H3N2)45.3 (34.3 to 56.8)86.8 (77.1 to 92.8)
B/Victoria32.0 (22.3 to 43.5)48.7 (37.5 to 60.0)
Statistical analysis
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Logistic · p = <0.001 (Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following vaccination if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10).)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Logistic · p = <0.001 (Number of participants achieving MN seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following vaccination if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10).)Microneutralization was used for H3N2 immunogenicity assessment, as it more sensitively detects responses to cell-grown H3N2 influenza viruses.
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Logistic · p = 0.035 (Number of participants achieving HAI seroconversion (a titer ≥1:40 following vaccination if the baseline titer is \<1:10 or a four-fold rise in titer if the baseline titer is \>1:10).)
PrimaryGeometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) in HAI Titer From Baseline

The geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in antibody titers from Baseline to Day 29 for each influenza vaccine antigen. Cell-grown A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria were assessed using hemagglutination inhibition (HAI), whereas A(H3N2) was assessed using microneutralization.

Time frame:
Day 29 post-vaccination assessment (Visit 2; scheduled for Day 29 with an allowable window of Days 28-42 post-vaccination)
Reported as:
Geometric mean · Fold Change
Geometric Mean Fold Rise (GMFR) in HAI Titer From Baseline
Fold ChangeFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok® (RIV3)
A(H1N1)pdm093.3 (2.5 to 4.3)6.4 (5.2 to 8.0)
A(H3N2)3.9 (3.0 to 5.0)12.0 (8.7 to 16.4)
B/Victoria3.3 (2.7 to 4.1)4.6 (3.5 to 6.0)
Statistical analysis
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = <0.001 (Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = <0.001 (95% confidence intervals were calculated using a t-distribution on log2-transformed titers and p-values were calculated using a linear regression model adjusted for site.)
  • Flucelvax® (ccIIV3) vs Flublok® (RIV3) · Regression, Linear · p = 0.068 (Mean fold-rise and 95% confidence intervals were calculated by taking the geometric mean of each individual's ratio of post-to-pre-vaccination titers.)

Adverse events

Collected over Up to approximately 8 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)1/301 (0.3%)3/301 (1%)—
Flublok® (RIV)0/298 (0%)0/298 (0%)—
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventFlucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok® (RIV)
Small cell lung cancer stage IVNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)1/3010/298
Kidney stonesRenal and urinary disorders1/3010/298
WhiplashInjury, poisoning and procedural complications1/3010/298

Baseline characteristics

Intention-to-treat population: Any participant who was enrolled and randomized.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok (RIV3)Total
Median37 (28 to 47)40 (29 to 52)38 (28 to 50)
Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Participants)Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok (RIV3)Total
18-49 years234211445
50-64 years6787154
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants)Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok (RIV3)Total
Female206207413
Male9588183
Unknown033
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok (RIV3)Total
Hispanic403474
American Indian or Alaska Native202
Asian413778
Black or African American181836
Middle Eastern or North African303
Multiple Races5914
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
White190196386
Other123
Unknown123
Enrollment Site
Enrollment Site(Participants)Flucelvax® (ccIIV3)Flublok (RIV3)Total
Arizona State6969138
Valleywise232245
Washington University7575150
UH Hospital7270142
Cleveland VA121325
University of Pittsburgh504999
08

Study locations

7 sites
  • Valleywise Health Comprehensive Health Center
    Phoenix, Arizona 85008, United States
  • ASU Biodesign Institute
    Tempe, Arizona 85281, United States
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Atlanta, Georgia 30333, United States
  • Washington University IDCRU
    St Louis, Missouri 63110, United States
  • University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
    Cleveland, Ohio 44106, United States
  • VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System (VANEOHS)
    Cleveland, Ohio 44106, United States
  • Department of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

  • Study protocol · May 14, 2024
  • Statistical analysis plan · Mar 31, 2025

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 28, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06518577
Lead sponsor
Duke University
Collaborators
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arizona State University, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh, Washington University School of Medicine, VA Medical Center-Cleveland
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 24, 2024
Start date
Sep 9, 2024
Primary completion
Dec 9, 2024
Completion
Jun 4, 2025
Results posted
Jul 28, 2026
Last update
Jul 28, 2026

Study contacts

Emmanuel B Walter, MD, MPH
principal investigator · Duke University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion