AI Insight
This study evaluated the effectiveness of the 2025/26 influenza vaccine in Canada during a season dominated by H3N2 subclade K, which was antigenically mismatched to the vaccine strain. Despite the mismatch, the vaccine reduced the risk of medically-attended illness by 38% for H3N2, 28% for H1N1, and 55% for influenza B among 9,047 outpatients. The research found that laboratory indicators of vaccine match did not reliably predict actual vaccine effectiveness, with some mismatched strains showing moderate protection and some matched strains showing variable results.
Why it matters
This research demonstrates that influenza vaccines can provide meaningful protection even against mismatched circulating strains, supporting continued annual vaccination campaigns. The findings highlight that laboratory testing alone cannot accurately predict real-world vaccine effectiveness, emphasizing the critical need for ongoing epidemiological surveillance to assess actual population-level protection each season.
Understand the Science
⚠️ Preprint – Noch nicht peer-reviewed
Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht von unabhängigen Experten begutachtet. Die Ergebnisse sind vorläufig und sollten mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.
Background: The 2025/26 influenza season included A(H3N2) subclade K predominance with A(H1N1)pdm09 co-circulation and subsequent prolonged influenza B activity. The Canadian Sentinel Practitioner Surveillance Network reports vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the context of genetic and antigenic relatedness to circulating viruses. Methods: We estimated VE by test-negative design among outpatients with medically-attended acute respiratory illness between November and April. We characterized case viruses by whole genome sequencing and hemagglutination inhibition assay. Results: Among 2809/9047 (31%) influenza-positive specimens, 82% (2306/2809) were influenza A with 18% (504/2809) influenza B. Of subtyped influenza A, 85% (1848/2169) were A(H3N2). We sequenced 59% (1099/1848) of A(H3N2) viruses, with 87% (956/1099) subclade K, antigenically-mismatched to subclade J.2 vaccine. VE against A(H3N2) and subclade K was 38% (95% confidence interval: 27%-47%) and 33% (19%-45%). We sequenced 69% (222/323) of A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses, virtually all (n=218) clade 5a.2a.1, including subclades D.3.1 (21%; n=47) and D.3.1.1 (77%; n=171), antigenically-matched to subclade D vaccine. VE against A(H1N1)pdm09, subclades D.3.1 and D.3.1.1 was 28% (4%-47%), -21% (-144%-40%) and 44% (14%-64%). We sequenced 82% (413/504) of influenza B viruses, all B/Victoria, including antigenically-mismatched subclade C.3 (18%; n=74) with D197N gain-of-glycosylation, and antigenically-matched subclade C.5 (82%; n=339) relative to subclade C vaccine. VE against influenza B, subclades C.3 and C.5 was 55% (41%-66%), 10% (-60%-49%) and 68% (51%-79%). Conclusions: The 2025/26 influenza vaccine reduced the risk of A(H3N2), A(H1N1)pdm09 and B/Victoria by over one-third, one-quarter and one-half, respectively. Laboratory-based indicators of vaccine match remain uncertain proxies for actual vaccine protection, reinforcing importance of annual epidemiological monitoring of VE.