Analysis of the safety and immunogenicity profile of an azoximer bromide polymer-adjuvanted subunit influenza vaccine.

Abstract

A systematic review of clinical trials conducted with a low-dose inactivated influenza vaccine adjuvanted by azoximer bromide (AZB, Polyoxidonium), was performed to compare vaccine reactogenicity against non-adjuvant vaccines. We also assessed whether lower amounts of antigen per viral strain in AZB-adjuvanted vaccines affected antibody responses. A robust search strategy identified scientific publications reporting 30 clinical trials, comprising data on 11,736 participants and 86 trial arms, for inclusion in the analysis. Local reaction rates (R lr ) appeared to be lower in AZB-adjuvanted vaccine treatment arms versus comparator vaccine treatment arms. Post-vaccination geometric mean titres in those exposed to AZB-adjuvanted vaccine and comparator vaccine treatment arms were similar in both children and adults aged 18–60 years, implying an antigen-sparing effect by AZB. Meta‑regression analysis based on a literature search of records or reports of clinical trials featuring AZB and the inactivated subunit of influenza published between 1998–2018 was conducted online in January 2019 and updated in August 2019. This search covered trials performed between 1993 and 2016 and suggested that AZB did not contribute to vaccine reactogenicity.

Full text

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
 Analysis of the safety and immunogenicity profile of an
azoximer bromide polymer-adjuvanted subunit influenza
vaccine. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
Ronald Kompier1, Pieter Neels2, Walter Beyer1,3, Tim Hardman 3,
Dmitry Lioznov4,5, Susanna Kharit6, Michail Kostinov 7,8
1Ruijgenhoeck 6, 2201 EW Noordwijk, Vaccine Consultancy, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles
2Vaccine Advice BVBA, Zoersel, Belgium
3Niche Science and Technology Ltd., Unit 26, Falstaff House, Bardolph Road, Niche Science and Technology, London, UK
4Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
5First Pavlov State Medical University, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
6Scientific Research Institute of Children’s Infections of the Russian Federal Biomedical Agency, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
7Department of Allergology, I.I. Mechnikov Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, Moscow, Russian Federation
8Moscow State Medical University, Department of Epidemiology and Modern Vaccination Technologies, Sechenov First, Moscow,
Russian Federation
First published: 02 Mar 2022, 11:259
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75869.1
Latest published: 03 Nov 2022, 11:259
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75869.2
v2
Abstract
A systematic review of clinical trials conducted with a low-dose
inactivated influenza vaccine adjuvanted by azoximer bromide (AZB,
Polyoxidonium), was performed to compare vaccine reactogenicity
against non-adjuvant vaccines. We also assessed whether lower
amounts of antigen per viral strain in AZB-adjuvanted vaccines
affected antibody responses. A robust search strategy identified
scientific publications reporting 30 clinical trials, comprising data on
11,736 participants and 86 trial arms, for inclusion in the analysis.
Local reaction rates (R lr) appeared to be lower in AZB-adjuvanted
vaccine treatment arms versus comparator vaccine treatment arms.
Post-vaccination geometric mean titres in those exposed to AZB-
adjuvanted vaccine and comparator vaccine treatment arms were
similar in both children and adults aged 18–60 years, implying an
antigen-sparing effect by AZB. Meta‑regression analysis based on a
literature search of records or reports of clinical trials featuring AZB
and the inactivated subunit of influenza published between
1998–2018 was conducted online in January 2019 and updated in
August 2019. This search covered trials performed between 1993 and
2016 and suggested that AZB did not contribute to vaccine
reactogenicity.
Open Peer Review
Approval Status
1 2
version 2
(revision)
03 Nov 2022
version 1
02 Mar 2022 view view
Marek Petra , Charles University Third
Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
1.
Lyazzat Yeraliyeva , Asfendiyarov
National Medical University, Almaty,
Kazakhstan
2.
Any reports and responses or comments on the
article can be found at the end of the article.

Page 1 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Corresponding author: Tim Hardman (tim.hardman@niche.org.uk)
Author roles: Kompier R: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources; Neels P: Methodology, Project Administration, Resources; Beyer
W: Investigation, Validation, Visualization; Hardman T: Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation; Lioznov D: Data
Curation, Formal Analysis, Validation; Kharit S: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation; Kostinov M:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology
Competing interests: RK is chief executive officer of Fluconsult – Vaccine Consultancy; PN is CEO of Vaccine Advice; WEPB has held
consultancies with pharmaceutical companies, his contribution to this work is based on a consultancy with Fluconsult; TH, DAL, SAK and
MPK report no conflict of interest. Fluconsult proposed the research question and provided the necessary documents and was involved
in the decision to submit for publication, but had no part in data analysis or interpretation.
Grant information: This investigation was funded by NPO Petrovax Pharm Limited Liability Company, Moscow, Russia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright: © 2022 Kompier R et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite this article: Kompier R, Neels P, Beyer W et al. Analysis of the safety and immunogenicity profile of an azoximer
bromide polymer-adjuvanted subunit influenza vaccine. [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2022, 11:259
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75869.2
First published: 02 Mar 2022, 11:259 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.75869.1
Keywords
influenza vaccine, vaccine adjuvant, azoximer bromide, vaccine safety,
immunogenicity, review, meta-analysis
This article is included in the Pathogens
gateway.

Page 2 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Introduction
Influenza virus infections cause seasonal epidemics worldwide and continue to be a major health and economic
burden.
1–3
Despite ongoing research, understanding of the precise pathogenesis of disease and appropriate specific
treatments remain elusive, leaving vaccination as the most effective means of prevention. Current licenced influenza
vaccines involve either inactivated, live-attenuated or recombinant formulations and contain either the whole virion, split
virion or viral subunits as the antigen. In particular, inactivated subunit (SU) vaccines possess a favourable tolerability
and safety profile and are relatively simple to produce. Influenza vaccines aim to induce antibodies against viral
hemagglutinin (HA) proteins which undergo steady antigenic drift and therefore require regular vaccine reformula-
tion.
4–8
Furthermore, HA antigens insufficiently induce long-term immunity and may require large doses and/or more
than one vaccination to guarantee robust protection.
9–12
Adjuvants can be added to inactivated vaccines to increase their
immunogenicity
13
; this is particularly relevant when considering vaccines for the elderly and immunocompromised
people, as well as during pandemics, when a rapid antibody response is required.
14
Well-established adjuvants include
alum
15
and MF59
10,11
; however, efficacy on antibody induction is impacted by age and may vary considerably
9,16,17
An adjuvanted, inactivated subunit influenza vaccine for subcutaneous and intramuscular injection (Grippol, NPO
Petrovax Pharm, Moscow, Russia) has been used in the Russian Federation and other countries of the Commonwealth of
Independent States for over two decades. The vaccine contains influenza virus HA and neuraminidase subunits
18
adjuvanted by 500 μg azoximer bromide (AZB, Polyoxidonium), an immune-modulating polymer belonging to a class of
synthetic heterochain polyamines. Azoximer bromide itself, has a long history of use throughout the Russian Federation
and neighbouring countries, both within clinical research and as an additional treatment for a variety of infections.
This is due to its beneficial effects on a host’s innate immune responses, including enhancement of phagocytosis; and its
anti-toxic effects, such as the reduction of free radicals.
20
The exact mechanism(s) by which AZB achieves these effects
are not fully understood, with an effect on melanoma differentiation-associated protein 5 (MDA5) gene expression via
effects on toll-like receptor 4 (TLR 4) gene, in addition to direct binding to cellular components of the blood.
20
There are
three formulations of Grippol, or azoximer-adjuvanted subunit vaccine (AZB-SU): Two trivalent formulations contain
HAs of two strains of influenza A (from A/H3N2 and A/H1N1 subtypes) and one of two B strains (from B/Victoria or
B/Yamagata lineage). The third formulation contains HAs of all four strains (quadrivalent). All formulations of AZB-SU
contain 5 μg HA per strain, a third less than the standard amount of 15 μg HA.
20
REVISED Amendments from Version 1
Abstract:
Text in the abstract and results were updated to specify the dates of studies included for analysis. The sentence describing
the meta-regression analysis was moved to the end for the abstract.
Introduction:
Background information on azoximer bromide expanded to include historical use and some reported therapeutic effects.
Methods:
Minor text edits to aid reading flow, including clarification of the linear meta-regression analysis as ‘post-hoc’.
Results:
Inclusion of the ® symbol as appropriate for comparator vaccines.
Minor edits, e.g., deletion of commas in 4-figure values, to aid reading flow.
The text describing the descriptive IV-weighted values was amended to more accurately describe the safety analyses.
Inclusion of the time periods over which the reviewed studies were conducted and published, in addition to when the online
literature search used in this study was conducted.
The description of ratios for Immunogenicity analysis was also amended from “included 0”to “were close to 0”, to more
accurately reflect the results of analysis.
Figure 3: Legend was amended to reflect that these were IV-weighted-averages.
Discussion:
Inclusion of a paragraph linking the limitations of this study on investigating the potential impact of both pre-immune status
and the presence or absence of chronic disease on vaccine and adjuvant response.
Very minor text edits to improve narrative flow.
References:
The order of references was changed, with references 19 and 20 swapping places and an additional 3 references added.
Reference 37, linking to the supplementary files data set, was adjusted to 40.
Any further responses from the reviewers can be found at the end of the article
Page 3 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

The addition of AZB to influenza SU vaccine enhances antibody production, even in immunosuppressed mice.
19,21,22
In
the Grippol formulations, AZB allows a reduction in the amount of HA antigen required per dose.
23
This antigen-sparing
strategy raises two questions:
1. Does AZB itself increase vaccine reactogenicity compared with non-adjuvant vaccines, i.e., does it have an
impact on vaccine safety and tolerability?
2. Does AZB-SU induce antibody levels comparable to non-adjuvant vaccines, despite its lower HA dose?
The present study investigated these questions by interrogating the clinical data reported for clinical trials with AZB-SU
(published and unpublished) over the past 20 years.
Methods
Data identification, selection criteria and extraction
This study was conducted according to the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-
Analyses (PRISMA).
24
A literature search was performed in English- and Russian-language databases (United States
National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health PubMed database, Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews,Russian National Medical Library) to identify any public records or reports of clinical trials conducted with
AZB-SU between 1998 and 2018. Relevant articles were identified by searching the terms: ‘influenza’AND ‘vaccin*’
AND ‘[‘azoximer bromide’OR ‘polyoxidonium’OR ‘Grippol’]. The online search was performed in January 2019 and
updated in August 2019.
Manual searching of existing lists of references, provided by the manufacturer, NPO Petrovax Pharm (Moscow, Russia),
was performed, and assessments included original trial reports and trial compilations produced by the manufacturer.
Study reports were rejected if a full text was not openly available or in case of pre-clinical studies, field studies or post-
marketing reports on rare events or individual cases.
Reports from studies with at least one of the following assessments were included:
- Reactogenicity: Participants were followed for at least 5–6 days after intervention (vaccine or placebo), and
local and systemic vaccine reactions were recorded.
- Safety: Serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded within at least 3–4 weeks after intervention.
- Immunogenicity: Antibody titres against vaccine strains were determined with a standard hemagglutination
inhibition assay, in sera drawn before and 3–4 weeks after intervention.
A data extraction form was used based on the PRISMA recommendations. Titles and abstracts identified from searches
were screened by two independent reviewers. They also independently reviewed full-text versions of marked articles that
met the predefined criteria. Each study was provided with a unique identifier number (Study reference number). All
extracted data were independently reviewed by two researchers and finalised after consultation and agreement on
inclusion and exclusion assignment was unanimous. Data extracted from included studies comprised: authors and date of
study, population characteristics (including age, medical history and previous vaccinations), trial design and intervention
arms, vaccines used (formulations, virus strains, amount of HA per strain and per dose), numbers or percentages of
participants with post-vaccination local or systemic reactions and the numbers of participants who experienced SAEs.
Immunogenicity data, i.e. pre- and post-vaccination geometric mean titre (GMT) and variance (e.g., confidence interval
[CI]) and serologic Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) variables (see below), were collected for
efficacy analyses. All entry data were critically assessed for eligibility by the reviewers.
Definitions and outcomes
Reactogenicity outcomes per treatment arm were the rate (proportion) of participants with any local (R
lr
) or systemic (R
sr
)
reactions up to 6 days post-vaccination. Safety outcomes per treatment arm were the number of SAEs within 4 weeks
following vaccination. Only data on SAE widely recognised to be related to vaccination were extracted, such as
allergic reactions, Guillain-Barré syndrome and narcolepsy. The primary immunogenicity outcome was pre- and post-
vaccination GMT. Post-vaccination HA antibody titre correlates well with protection against influenza infection, and
could act as a predictor of actual vaccine efficacy in the wider population using an evidence-based clinical protection
curve.
25
Secondary efficacy outcomes were: seroprotection rate (SPR, proportion of participants with a post-vaccination
titre of at least 40); seroconversion rate (SCR, proportion of participants with at least a 4-fold increase from baseline);
Page 4 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

mean fold increase (MFI) (post-vaccination GMT: pre-vaccination GMT ratio). For annual re-licensing of inactivated
influenza vaccines in the European Union, age-defined criteria for SPR, SCR and MFI in groups of at least 50 vaccinees,
had been set by the CPMP in 1992,
19
but were withdrawn in 2016. These variables are regarded here for the purpose of
completeness.
Statistical analyses
In trials with randomized allocation of different treatments, the following measures of distance between two treatments,
and their 95% CIs, were calculated:
- The local and systemic rate difference (RDlr and RDsr), derived from local and systemic reaction rates,
respectively. Two treatments were regarded as having similar reactogenicity when the 95% CI of their RD
value included zero.
- The GMT ratio (GMTR), derived from post-vaccination GMTs. Two treatments were regarded as having
similar immunogenicity when the 95% CI of their GMTR value includes 1.0. In trials designed and powered to
assess non-inferiority or superiority, one treatment was regarded non-inferior to another one when the lower
limit of the 95% CI of their GMTR value exceeded 0.67, and superior when it exceeded 1.5.
All participants assessed for efficacy had three or four anti-HA titre values (one titre for each vaccine strain; A-H3N2 and
A-H1N1, and one or two B strains), therefore trial arms were subdivided into sub-arms, one sub-arm per vaccine strain.
Any sub-arms that were further subdivided into groups with low and high pre-vaccinations titres in original publications
were pooled to increase statistical power. When two comparator vaccines were given within a trial, they were pooled into
one treatment arm due to their similarity in terms of safety and immunogenicity.
26
An additional analysis was performed
for one trial with AZB-SU and comparator vaccine whereby GMT and standard deviation (SD) values were transformed
into post-vaccination antibody-predicted protection rates (post-PR
ab
).
27,28
The post-PR
ab
ratio between treatment arms
was calculated. The post-PR
ab
values were regarded similar if the 95% CI of their ratio included 1.0.
Apost-hoc linear meta-regression analysis was performed to adjust local and systemic reaction rates for several variables:
total HA amount per vaccine dose, mean age and health status. Adjusted reaction rates were tested with a dummy binary
variable representing AZB content (0: placebo and comparator vaccines [no AZB]; 1: AZB-SU) to determine whether
there was any intrinsic reactogenicity associated with AZB. Funnel plots were constructed from logarithmic local and
systemic rate ratios and their standard errors to assess potential publication bias,
29
which would be by asymmetry in the
funnel plot.
Outcome variables from several trials were combined using the inverse-variance weighted method or were subjected
to least-squares linear meta-regression using the software package ‘Comprehensive Meta-Analysis’,
30
[version
3.3.070/20140 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA)]. Other analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows
version 25/2017 (Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Study selection
The selection process of clinical trials is summarised in Table 1. One hundred and forty-eight reports were identified, of
which 30 were found to be duplicates, and 118 records were screened. Forty-seven reports were found not to include
clinical trial data and were therefore excluded. Seventy-one records were assessed further for eligibility. Nineteen records
were excluded because they did not focus on the topic of interest, 20 records were excluded because they did not include
data on the outcome of interest, and two records were excluded because the study arm population was considered to be too
small (<10 participants). Data from the remaining 30 publications or reports were included in the analyses (Figure 1).
Table 1. Population characteristics of 30 clinical trials included in the analysis.
All trials
N Participants N (%)
30 11,736 100.0
Age class (years)
Toddlers (0.5 to 3 years) 3 441 3.8
Children/adolescents (3 to 17 years) 12 5140 43.8
Adults (18 –60 years) 10 3369 28.7
Predominantly elderly (>60 years) 5 2786 23.7
Page 5 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Study characteristics
The trials were performed between 1993 and 2016 and comprised 11,736 participants aged between 6 months and
99 years (Table 1). The majority of participants (7392 [63.0%]) were reported as healthy (no reported chronic disease).
The remaining 4344 participants (37.0%) were reported as having allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus type 1, HIV infection or age-related chronic conditions. A breakdown of study
population characteristics by trial is presented in Extended data, Figure C. Eleven of the trials were uncontrolled or
placebo-controlled standalone trials, 12 were randomised bridging trials (between AZB-SU formulations), and seven
were randomised non-inferiority trials conducted with non-adjuvanted comparator vaccines. Fourteen trials (46.7%)
assessed both safety and immunogenicity, 15 (50.0%) assessed safety only, and one (3.3%) assessed immunogenicity
only. A total of 7037 participants (60.0%) in 56 treatment arms received the AZB-SU vaccine and 1391 (11.9%)
participants in 15 treatment arms received comparator vaccines, which were either whole virus (Immunopreparation
®
),
split (Begrivac
®
, Vaxigrip
®
, Fluarix
®
), or subunit formulation (Influvac, Agrippal). Participants in trivalent AZB-SU
arms received 15 μg HA per dose in most cases, except in dose-finding trials where some participants received lower
(7.5 μg HA) or higher (30 μg HA) doses. The HA amount of the influenza B component was increased from 5 μgto11μg
(21 μg HA per dose) in two trials (T14 and T16, Supplemental Materials Figure D). Participants in quadrivalent AZB-SU
arms all received 5 μg HA per vaccine strain (20 μg HA per dose). All comparator vaccines contained 15 μg HA per
vaccine strain; participants in comparator treatment arms received 45 μg HA per dose as all comparator vaccines were
trivalent. A total of 2242 participants (19.1%) in 10 trial arms received a placebo (saline) and 1066 participants (9.1%)
received no intervention. No data were reported for two no-intervention treatment arms, which were therefore excluded
from the analysis. Other placebo or no-intervention arms that contained eligible data were included in the safety analysis
and excluded from the immunogenicity analysis. Further details on study design and trial arms in each trial are presented
in the Supplementary Materials, Figure D (Extended data).
Table 1. Continued
All trials
N Participants N (%)
30 11,736 100.0
Health status
Predominantly healthy 18 7392 63.0
Predominantly with chronic disease 12 4344 37.0
Study design
Uncontrolled or placebo-controlled stand-alone trial 11 7172 61.1
Randomised bridging trial between AZ-SU formulations 12 2708 23.1
Randomised non-inferiority trial with non-adjuvanted vaccines 7 1856 15.8
Assessment
Both safety and immunogenicity 14 3950 33.7
Safety only 15 7746 66.0
Immunogenicity only 1 40 0.3
Intervention
AZB-SU formulation
AZB-SU
1996
(with thimerosal) 23 3328 28.4
AZB-SU
2008
(thimerosal-free) 28 3183 27.1
AZB-SU
TC
(tissue culture-grown) 3 290 2.5
AZB-SU
2018
(with both B strains) 2 236 2.0
Non-adjuvanted comparator vaccine
Whole virus IIV 1 108 0.9
Split IIV 9 905 7.7
Subunit IIV 4 378 3.2
No vaccine
Intramuscular placebo (saline) 11 2242 19.1
No relevant intervention 5 1066 9.1
IIV = inactivated influenza vaccine; AZB-SU = polymer-adjuvanted subunit (vaccine).
Page 6 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Safety analysis
No SAEs or deaths were reported in any of the trials. Overall, local reactions (at least one) occurred in 646 of 10,405
participants (6.2%), and at least one systemic reaction occurred in 495 of 10,348 participants (4.8%). The difference in
number of total participants was a consequence of exclusion of what trial authors identified as intercurrent trivial events
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of literature retrieval. Legend: (none).
Figure 2. Local and systemic reaction rate estimates from 69 single intervention arms. Legend: Symbols
represent local and systemic reaction rate estimates from single intervention arms, arranged according to increas-
ing total vaccine dose.
Page 7 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

that were reported in some of the original papers. Single R
lr
and R
sr
values were grouped according to treatment type,
and their distributions were plotted against total HA per vaccine dose (Figure 2) reaching from no HA (placebo
and no-intervention arms) to 45 μg HA (comparator vaccines). Reaction rate values (R
lr
and R
sr
) were <6.0% for most
treatment arms. Notably, the largest R
lr
value (35.5%) occurred in a comparator vaccine treatment arm, and the largest R
sr
value (24.3%) in a placebo arm.
In randomised trials, rate differences (RD) between reaction rates of AZB-SU vaccines and other treatment types (placebo
or comparator vaccines) could be calculated (Figure 3). For local reactions, most 95% CIs included 0. However, AZB-SU
tended to have lower R
lr
compared with comparator vaccines and higher R
lr
compared with placebo. Descriptive IV-
weighted average RD
lr
values differed significantly between AZB-SU and comparator vaccines (-2.3%; 95% CI: -3.8 to
-0.7). For systemic reactions, no such trend was observed, and IV-weighted RD
sr
values were not significantly different
between treatment types. Meta-regression analysis of records or reports of clinical trials conducted 1993–2016 and
Figure 3. Randomised comparison trials (regular AZB-SU versus three comparator classes). Reaction rate
difference values. Legend: Minuend: AZB-SU
1996
in trials T01, T03, T06, T07, T08, T10, T14 and T16; AZB-SU
2008
in
T13, T18, T19, T21, T23, T27 and T28; AZB-SU
2018
(20 μg HA) in T29 and T30. Subtrahend bridging studies: AZB-SU
1996
2 times 2.5 μg HA in T08; AZB-SU
2008
in T14, T29 and T30; PO- SU
TC
in T16 and T19. Subtrahend non-adjuvanted IIV:
whole virus in T01; subunit in T10, T18, T21, T23, T27 and T28; subunit and split combined in T07. For trial numbers,
see Supplementary Materials, Figure B and C. T06 was divided into two age groups. MA RD, descriptive IV-weighted
averages.
Page 8 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

published 1998–2018, identified during an online literature search performed in January 2019 (updated August 2019),
suggested a positive correlation between reaction rate and total amount (μg) HA per vaccine dose for local reactions
(P=0.03), but not for systemic reactions. There was a positive correlation between both R
lr
and R
sr
with mean age up to a
mean of 60 years; reaction rates dropped sharply at higher mean ages. There was no correlation between AZB-SU R
lr
or
R
sr
and health status. Other possible modulators of reactogenicity were not analysed as they were reported in only a few
trials. None of the various meta-regression models involving a dummy variable representing AZB content showed
evidence of reactogenicity associated with AZB: Reaction rates were similar when adjusted for total HA per dose and
mean age (Extended data, Figure E). Funnel plots constructed from logarithmic local and systemic rate ratios were largely
symmetrical.
Immunogenicity
The immunogenicity analysis included data from 3311 participants and 9408 pre- and post-vaccination GMT pairs
gathered from 28 intervention arms and 80 antibody sub-arms from 15 trials. A non-inferiority analysis comparing post-
vaccination GMT values of AZB-SU and non-adjuvant comparator vaccines was performed using data from five trials
(Figure 4, middle panel). In three trials (Trial 01, Trial 23 and Trial 27), the 95% CIs of GMTR (AZB-SU: comparator)
included 1, which indicated that the GMT values were not significantly different between treatment types. In Trial 10, the
GMTR of all three viral strains had 95% CIs much higher than 1.0; AZB-SU vaccine GMT values were 8- to 9-fold
higher than that of the comparator vaccine (AZB-SU: 239–448; comparator: 30–48). In Trial 07, the only trial performed
in elderly participants (>60 years), 95% CIs were lower than 1.0 for all three strains. Comparator GMT values were 1 to
2-fold higher than those of AZB-SU (Table 2). This result was explored further by evaluating whether the difference
in antibody titre was associated with lower antibody-predicted clinical protection for AZB-SU vaccines. The post-PR
ab
values ranged from 81.0% to 94.7% in AZB-SU treatment arms and from 87.5% to 97.8% in comparator arms.
The respective ratios were close to 1.0, suggesting that protection was similar between AZB-SU and non-adjuvant
comparator.
A non-inferiority trial in adults aged 18–60 years compared the quadrivalent AZB-SU formulation with two trivalent non-
adjuvant comparators (Trial 30), of which one contained B/Yamagata and the other contained B/Victoria. Non-inferiority
of quadrivalent AZB-SU to trivalent AZB-SU was demonstrated for all three common strains (Figure 4, right panel), and
superiority of quadrivalent AZB-SU to trivalent AZB-SU for the B strain not included in the trivalent formulation.
The former re-licensing criteria of the CPMP needed to be evaluated in groups of 50 adult participants or more.
20
This
requirement was met in 29 trial sub-arms from seven trials. Seroconversion rates, seroprotection rates and mean
geometric increase after AZB-SU vaccination were higher than the CPMP thresholds set for adults aged 18–60 years
and elderly adults in the majority of sub-arms; all 29 arms met at least one of these criteria (Extended data, Figure H).
Figure 4. Randomised comparison trials (AZB-SU versus three comparator classes). Geometric mean titre ratios.
Legend: AZB-SU mutual: T14A: AZB-SU
2008
vs. AZB-SU
1996
; T16A: AZB-SU
TC
vs. AZB-SU
1996
; T19: AZB-SU
TC
vs. PO-
SU
2008
; T14B: AZB-SU
2008
10 μg HA vs. AZB-SU
1996
5μg; T16B: AZB-SU
TC
10 μg HA vs. AZB-SU
1996
; T20: AZB-SU
2008
10 μg
HA vs AZB-SU
2008
. AZB-SU vs. non-adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV): T01, T07, T10: AZB-SU1
996
; T23, T27:
AZB-SU
2008
. QIV vs. TIV: QIV, quadrivalent influenza vaccine; TIV: trivalent influenza vaccine; Y, B/Yamagata; V:
B/Victoria. Non-inferiority is demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval around the GMTR value
(QIV versus TIV) is larger than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 0.67. Superiority is demonstrated if the lower
limit of the 95% CI around the GMTR is larger than the pre-defined superiority margin of 1.5. * atypical influenza
B component in 2008.
Page 9 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Discussion
The current work analysing the available clinical evidence supports the hypothesis that across all age groups, the
inclusion of azoximer bromide as an adjuvant to influenza subunit vaccine does not cause any increase in reported local or
systemic reactions following vaccination. This conclusion particularly holds in elderly and vulnerable populations,
the main target groups for yearly influenza vaccinations. Similarly, we noted that the antigen-sparing approach of
including AZB and reducing total antigen (5 μgvs15μg HA per strain), resulted in similar antibody responses to non-
adjuvanted vaccines in non-elderly patients; however, more data is necessary to make this conclusion for older
populations.
Review of the available safety data suggests that AZB-SU vaccines are associated with fewer local reactions compared
with vaccines that contained higher amounts of HA antigen; the incidence of systemic reactions, however, appears to be
similar for AS-SU and other vaccines. This finding is congruent with observations made in large clinical trials, which
showed an overall higher average rate of local reactions with higher HA per dose but little or no difference in the rate of
systemic reactions.
31,32
The similarity in the systemic reaction rates between AZB-SU, placebo and comparator vaccines,
suggests that the reporting of such systemic reactions was most likely to have been attributable to the act of intramuscular
injection, or reflects little more than the everyday incidence of trivial symptoms that people experience; indeed, treatment
arms in two trials (Trial 02 and Trial 08) had elevated R
sr
values even though participants received no treatment.
A symptomatic complex of systemic reactions following vaccination during pregnancy has been described, which was
most often associated with psychological state and anxiety of the development of AEs in response to vaccination.
33
The intrinsic reactogenicity of AZB could not be determined directly, in the absence of randomised clinical trials
comparing SU vaccines with identical amounts of HA, but with or without AZB. However, meta-regression analysis
of the available data detected no difference in reaction rates after adjustment for mean age and the amount of HA
administered, and predicted that AZB was not associated with intrinsic reactogenicity.
No SAEs of an allergic or neurological nature were reported in any of the trials selected for review, covering a total
population of 11,736 participants. While this suggests a low risk of SAEs, a formal conclusion cannot be drawn as it
exceeds the power of clinical trials to detect very rare events. However, favourable safety data come from a previous mass
vaccination trial with AZB-SU that reviewed vaccination in nearly 420,000 paediatric participants and reported no more
than 33 allergic SAEs (incidence: 0.008%; one event per 12,700 participants vaccinated) and no SAEs that were
neurological in nature.
34
The immunogenicity data collected on more than 3000 participants across 15 studies generally supported the antigen-
sparing effect of AZB, maintaining efficacy although the amount of HA in AZB-SU was only a third of the standard dose
in comparable non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines. It was clear that AZB-SU vaccines induced antibody production in
both children and adults up to 60 years at levels similar to those noted with comparator vaccines. This observation was
seen for all comparisons except for one study in favour of AZB-SU (Trial 10; see Figure 4, middle panel) which remains
unexplained but may result from a data artefact. The data from older adults (>60 years) were less robust, based on only
three sub-arms. Analysis on post-PR
ab
showed that clinical protection was not compromised in the AZB-SU vaccinees.
Seroprotection and seroconversion data in AZB-SU treatment arms revealed that AZB-SU would have met CPMP criteria
for annual re-licensing of vaccines in the European Union in both adults aged 18–60 years and adults >60 years.
Table 2. Antibody and clinical protection levels for Trial 07, performed in the elderly.
(Sub)type Intervention arm Post-GMT Post-protection
rate (%)
Post-GMT
ratio
Post-protection rate
ratio
(95% CI) (95% CI)
A-H3N2 AZB-SU 148.4 89.9 0.42 0.94
non-adjuvanted IIV 354.6 96.0 (0.33 to 0.53) (0.88 to 1.00)
A-H1N1 AZB-SU 74.1 81.0 0.62 0.93
non-adjuvanted IIV 118.7 87.5 (0.49 to 0.80) (0.84 to 1.02)
B AZB-SU 277.3 94.7 0.47 0.97
non-adjuvanted IIV 587.2 97.8 (0.37 to 0.60) (0.92 to 1.02)
CI = confidence interval; GMT = geometric mean titre; AZB-SU = polymer-adjuvanted subunit (vaccine).
Page 10 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

A possible limitation of this study is its partial reliance on reports provided by the manufacturer. The sponsor’s clinical
study reports had not undergone peer review, although the data from many of them were published in peer-reviewed
journals. However, it is expected that these reports were prepared in line with good clinical practice, with a view to
submission to regulatory agencies, and were therefore conducted robustly, countering the potential for any selection or
interpretation bias. Review of the funnel plot data for reactogenicity variables showed no evidence of bias. In addition,
during preparation of this article, two new studies assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the quadrivalent vaccine.
Their findings are in line with those reported here, and they also provide supportive information on the practical use of
quadrivalent AZB-SU vaccines.
35,36
Another possible limitation is the effect of pre-immunity and immune system status of the participants on their immune
response to the vaccine and adjuvant. Natural antigenic drift results in different strains of influenza virus being prevalent
annually. This results in individuals exhibiting a variable pre-immune status and response to vaccination that is dependent
on the influenza strains they have previously encountered. The impact of this on vaccine and adjuvant effectiveness
in this study is unknown. A study investigating MF59-adjuvanted influenza vaccine, found the effectiveness of adjuvant
to diminish with the age of participants, with the greatest effect in children with minimal pre-immunity/prior exposure
to flu.
37,38
Similarly, the potential presence or absence of chronic diseases on the health of participants and their
response to the vaccine must also be considered.
39
The limited number of trials and vaccines investigated in this study was
insufficient to form a conclusion regarding the role of either pre-immunity or health status on the participants’response to
the vaccines or adjuvants used. However, both present an avenue for future investigation.
In conclusion, the favourable safety profile and immunogenicity of AZB-SU vaccines, along with the reduced amount
of antigen per dose and sparing effect of AZB, make AZB-SU vaccines good candidates for use not only during a
pandemic or limited national capacity of vaccine production, but in general for seasonal influenza vaccination. Future
research will be directed towards evaluating whether AZB also shows an antigen-sparing effect in elderly patients
undergoing vaccination.
Data availability
Underlying data
Zenodo: Grippol Supplementary Files, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6221942.
40
This project contains the following underlying data:
- Grippol_Paper_Supplementary_Material.docx (Figure B; list of eligible publications)
Extended data
Zenodo: Grippol Supplementary Files, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6221942.
40
This project contains the following extended data:
- Grippol_Paper_Supplementary_Material.docx
- README_file.txt.docx
Reporting guidelines
Zenodo: PRISMA checklist for “Analysis of the safety and immunogenicity profile of an azoximer bromide polymer-
adjuvanted subunit influenza vaccine”,https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6221942.
40
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Acknowledgements
This is an updated and extended version of a Clinical Expert Report to Petrovax Pharm (2017). RK presented parts of this
investigation at the symposium ‘100 years of the Spanish Flu pandemic. New opportunities of influenza vaccination’
within the Fifth Russian Scientific Conference ‘Infectious Diseases - Current Problems, Treatment and Prevention’in
Moscow, Russia on May 24, 2018, and the conference ‘Influenza Vaccines for the World’, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK,
April 4, 2019.
Page 11 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

The authors wish to thank Mimoun Boulfich, BSc University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, for acting as second
reviewer during data extraction, assemblage and review of the working databases, and the colleagues of NPO Petrovax
Pharm for supporting the literature search and providing unpublished documents.
References
1. World Health Organisation: Influenza fact sheet. 2018. Accessed
November 6, 2018.
Reference Source
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Seasonal influenza
vaccine effectiveness, 2005–2018. Accessed 26 July 2018.
Reference Source
3. Ozawa S, et al.: Modeling the economic burden of adult vaccine-
preventable diseases in the United States. Health Aff. (Millwood).
2016; 35: 2124–2132.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
4. Esposito S, Principi N; European Society of Clinical Microbiology
Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Vaccine Study Group (EVASG).
Influenza vaccination and prevention of antimicrobial
resistance. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 2018 Oct; 17(10): 881–888.
Publisher Full Text
5. de Vries RD, Altenburg AF, Rimmelzwaan GF: Universal influenza
vaccines, science fiction or soon reality?. Expert Rev. Vaccines.
2015; 14(10): 1299–1301.
Publisher Full Text
6. Kostinov MP, Akhmatova NK, Khromova EA, et al.: The impact of
adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines on the
innate and adaptive immunity effectors.IntechOpen Book Series.
Infectious Diseases, Vol. 1. Influenza. Therapeutics and Challenges.
Saxena SK, editor. 2018; p. 83–109.
Publisher Full Text
7. Altenburg AF, Rimmelzwaan GF, de Vries RD: Virus-specific T cells
as correlate of (cross-) protective immunity against influenza.
Vaccine. 2015 Jan 15; 33(4): 500–506.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
8. Subbarao K, Murphy BR, Fauci AS: Development of effective vac-
cines against pandemic influenza. Immunity. 2006; 24(1): 5–9.
Publisher Full Text
9. Treanor JJ, Wilkinson BE, Masseoud F, et al.: Safety and
immunogenicity of a recombinant hemagglutinin vaccine for
H5 influenza in humans. Vaccine. 2001; 19: 1732–1737.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
10. Nicholson KG, Colegate AE, Podda A, et al.: Safety and antigenicity
of non- adjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted influenza A/duck/
Singapore/97 (H5N3) vaccine: a randomised trial of two
potential vaccines against H5N1 influenza. Lancet. 2001; 357:
1937–1943.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
11. Treanor JJ, Campbell JD, Zangwill KM, et al.: Safety and
immunogenicity of an inactivated subvirion influenza A (H5N1)
vaccine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006; 354: 1343–1351.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
12. Atmar RL, Keitel WA, Patel SM, et al.: Safety and immunogenicity of
nonadjuvanted and MF59-adjuvanted influenza A/H9N2 vaccine
preparations. Clin Infect Dis: Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2006; 43:
1135–1142.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
13. Khalaj-Hedayati A, Chua CLL, Smooker P, et al.: Nanoparticles in
influenza subunit vaccine development: Immunogenicity
enhancement. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses. 2020; 14(1): 92–101.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
14. Tregoning JS, Russell RF, Kinnear E: Adjuvanted influenza vac-
cines. Hum. Vaccin. Immunother. 2018; 14(3): 550–564.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
15. Hehme N, Engelmann H, Kunzel W, et al.: Pandemic preparedness:
lessons learnt from H2N2 and H9N2 candidate vaccines. Med
Microbiol Immunol (Berl). 2002; 191: 203–208.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
16. Bresson JL, Perronne C, Launay O, et al.: Safety and
immunogenicity of an inactivated split-virion influenza
A/Vietnam/1194/2004(H5N1) vaccine: phase I randomised trial.
Lancet. 2006; 367: 1657–1664.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
17. Beyer WEP, Palache AM, Reperant LA, et al.: Association between
vaccine adjuvant effect and pre-seasonal immunity. Systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomised immunogenicity trials
comparing squalene-adjuvanted and aqueous inactivated
influenza vaccines. Vaccine. 2020; 38: 1614–1622.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
18. Bachmayer H, Schmidt G, Liehl E: Preparation and properties of a
novel influenza subunit vaccine. Postgrad. Med. J. 1976; 52:
360–367.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text |Free Full Text
19. Grivtsova LY, Falaleeva NA, Tupitsyn NN: Azoximer bromide:
mystery, serendipity and promise. Front. Oncol. 2021; 11.
Publisher Full Text
20. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), CPMP: Note
for guidance on preclinical pharmacological and toxicological
testing of vaccines (CPMP/SWP/565/95 adopted December 97).
1997.
Reference Source
21. Kabanov VA: From synthetic polyelectrolytes to polymer-subunit
vaccines. Pure Appl. Chem. 2004; 76: 1659–1677.
Publisher Full Text
22. Ivanova AS, Puchkova NG, Nekrasov AV, et al.: Polyoxidonium
adjuvant effect mechanisms. Hæmatopoïesis Immunol. 2015; 13:
30–92.
23. Talayev V, Zaichenko I, Svetlova M, et al.: Low-dose influenza
vaccine Grippol Quadrivalent with adjuvant Polyoxidonium
induces a T helper-2 mediated humoral immune response and
increases NK cell activity. Vaccine. 2020; 38: 6645–6655.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al.: PRISMA Group: Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
the PRISMA Statement. BMJ. 2009; 339: b2535.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
25. Coudeville L, Bailleux F, Riche B, et al.: Relationship
between haemagglutination-inhibiting antibody titres
and clinical protection against influenza: development
and application of a bayesian random-effects model. BMC Med
Res Methol. 2010; 10: 18.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
26. Beyer WEP, Nauta JJP, Palache AM, et al.: Immunogenicity and
safety of inactivated influenza vaccines in primed populations:
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Vaccine. 2011;
29: 5785–5792.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
27. Coudeville L, Andre P, Bailleux F, et al.: A new approach to estimate
vaccine efficacy based on immunogenicity data applied to
influenza vaccines administered by the intradermal or
intramuscular routes. Hum. Vaccin. 2010; 6: 841–848.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
28. Nauta JJP, Beyer WEP, Osterhaus ADME: On the relationship
between antibody response to influenza vaccination,
seroprotection and clinical protection from influenza.
Biologicals. 2009; 37: 216–221.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
29. Sterne JAC, Egger M: Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-
analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001; 54:
1046–1055.
Publisher Full Text
30. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H: Comprehensive
Meta Analysis software programme (Version 3). 2014.
31. Beyer WEP, Palache AM, Kerstens R, et al.: Gender differences in
local and systemic reactions to inactivated influenza vaccine,
established by a meta- analysis of fourteen independent
studies. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1996; 15:65–70.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
32. Nichol KL, Margolis KL, Lind A, et al.: Side effects associated with
influenza vaccination in healthy working adults. A randomized,
Page 12 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

placebo-controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 1996; 156: 1546–1550.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
33. Kostinov MP, Cherdantsev AP, Akhmatova NK, et al.:
Immunogencity and safety of subunit influenza vaccines in
pregnant women. ERJ Open research. 2018; 4: 00060–02017.
Publisher Full Text
34. Luss AS, Kostinov MP, Bakhmatova OB, et al.: Results of post-
vaccination reactions in children of Perm Krai after influenza
vaccination. Vaccination. 2007; 50:8–10. (Russian).
35. Kostinova AM, Akhmatova NK, Latysheva EA, et al.: Assessment of
immunogenicity of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in healthy
people and patients with common variable immune deficiency.
Front. Immunol. 1876; 2020: 11.
36. Kostinov MP, Latysheva EA, Rjstinova AM, et al.: Immunogenicity
and Safety of the Quadrivalent Adjuvant Subunit Influenza
Vaccine in Seropositive and Seronegative Healthy People and
Patients with Common Variable Immunodeficiency. Vaccine.
2020; 8: 640.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
37. Biswas A, Charabarti AK, Dutta S: Current challenges from the
path of original antigenic sin towards the development of
universal flu vaccines. Int. Rev. Immunol. 2020; 39(1): 21–36.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
38. Beyer WEP, Palache AM, Boulfich M, et al.: Clinical relevance of
increased antibody titres in older adults upon vaccination with
squalene-adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted influenza
vaccines. Vaccine. 2022; 40: 3098–3102.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
39. Buchy P, Badur S: Who and when to vaccinate against influenza.
Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020; 93: 375–387.
PubMed Abstract|Publisher Full Text
40. Kompier R, Neels P, Beyer W, et al.: Grippol Supplementary Files
[Data set]. Zenodo. 2022.
Publisher Full Text
Page 13 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Open Peer Review
Current Peer Review Status:
Version 1
Reviewer Report21 September 2022
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79798.r149675
© 2022 Yeraliyeva L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Lyazzat Yeraliyeva
Asfendiyarov National Medical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
The relevance of the research topic is beyond doubt. Influenza is a serious disease causing various
complications and deaths in infants, elderly people, and patients with chronic diseases.
Vaccination is still the most effective method of influenza prevention.
Today, there are 5 generations of influenza vaccines, and the authors carried out a systematic
review and analysis of 30 clinical trials of various study designs, including 11,736 participants aged
6 months to over 60 years; the study was aimed at the reactogenicity, safety, and immunogenicity
comparison of an inactivated adjuvanted influenza vaccine (AZB-SU vaccines) containing low
antigen 5 µg HA per strain (with addition of azoximer bromide 500 µg) and non-adjuvanted
vaccines containing antigen 15 µg HA.
1. Abstract
It is advisable to indicate in the abstract the meta-analysis period
2. Introduction
Provide a detailed information on the azoximer bromide adjuvant (Polyoxidonium), specifically its
pharmacological properties.
3. Methods
In the "Definitions and outcomes" and "Statistical analyses" subsections, authors indicate the
treatment outcomes, but the vaccination outcomes are required. To be clarified.
4. Results
It is necessary to clarify the period of meta-analysis carried out by the authors, since the period
from 1993 to 2016 is indicated in the "Characteristics of studies" section, and 1998-2018 in the
"Methods" section.
5. Discussion
It is necessary to discuss whether the presence of chronic diseases affected immunogenicity

Page 14 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

depending on the vaccine type used with different antigens and adjuvants content. Besides, it is
necessary to discuss the immunogenicity issues
Reviewing this article, I would like to note that the systematic review is of undoubted scientific and
practical importance and will be of interest both among a wide range of medical workers,
immunologists, epidemiologists, and among public health professionals.
Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: infection diseases, vaccination, epidemiology
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Author Response 31 Oct 2022
Tim Hardman, Niche Science and Technology, London, UK
1) Abstract
Comment:
It is advisable to indicate in the abstract the meta-analysis period
Response:
The meta-analysis period has been included in the draft of the manuscript, as
recommended.
2) Introduction
Comment 2:
Provide a detailed information on the azoximer bromide adjuvant (Polyoxidonium), specifically its
pharmacological properties.
Response:
Thank you for your comment. A lot of the pharmacological information about azoximer
bromide, including mechanism(s) of action and target(s) are still under investigation.

Page 15 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

However, the authorship believes all the relevant information has been included in the
revised manuscript.
3) Materials and methods
Comment:
In the "Definitions and outcomes" and "Statistical analyses" subsections, authors indicate the
treatment outcomes, but the vaccination outcomes are required. To be clarified.
Response:
The vaccination outcomes are the treatment outcomes described. In this context ‘treatment
outcome’ was used in a statistical sense, as opposed to the strict medical definition of the
term, as this includes both the placebo and no-intervention arms.
4) Results
Comment:
It is necessary to clarify the period of meta-analysis carried out by the authors, since the period
from 1993 to 2016 is indicated in the "Characteristics of studies" section, and 1998-2018 in the
"Methods" section.
Response:
The period of meta-analysis has been clarified in both the abstract and the results section.
5) Discussion
Comment:
It is necessary to discuss whether the presence of chronic diseases affected immunogenicity
depending on the vaccine type used with different antigens and adjuvants content. Besides, it is
necessary to discuss the immunogenicity issues
Response:
This is another great, relevant point to raise and has also been added to the potential
limitations of this study. The presence of chronic diseases and their impact on
immunogenicity in the context of different antigens and adjuvants, are areas the authorship
have involvement in, but again, the level of data available in this study was insufficient to
investigate it here.
Competing Interests: RK is chief executive officer of Fluconsult – Vaccine Consultancy; PN is
CEO of Vaccine Advice; WEPB has held consultancies with pharmaceutical companies, his
contribution to this work is based on a consultancy with Fluconsult; TH, DAL, SAK and MPK
report no conflict of interest. Fluconsult proposed the research question and provided the
necessary documents and was involved in the decision to submit for publication, but had no
part in data analysis or interpretation.

Page 16 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Reviewer Report15 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.79798.r123089
© 2022 Petra M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Marek Petra
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Charles University Third Faculty of Medicine,
Prague, Czech Republic
1) Abstract
The main results were obtained by quantitative meta-analysis. It would be appropriate to state it
also in the abstract.
2) Introduction
It will be suitable to better describe azoximer bromide, i.e. if it is used in some medical products, if
it is a pharmacopoeial substance, etc.
3) Materials and methods
A meta-analysis was conducted, therefore the MOOSE assessment (Meta-analysis of Observational
Studies in Epidemiology) is missing.
In addition, the authors omitted the bias risk assessment according to the Grading of
Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. It is not clear if
the study outcome can be burdened by this risk of bias.
The fixed-effects method is applied in the case of studies' homogeneity. There is no explanation of
the I-V method, i.e. the selection criteria. Furthermore, the random-effects method helps to
evaluate the literary bias. Therefore, both results are required.
4) Results
Page 13, line 268: "The respective ratios included 1.0...", this should read: "The confidence interval
of appropriate ratios included…".
5) Discussion
Influenza vaccine is a specific vaccine depending on seasonal influenza strains changing every
year.
Therefore, it should be discussed whether this specific feature of influenza seasons had an effect
on the immunogenicity and, possibly, the safety of the adjuvanted influenza vaccine being
evaluated.
Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Page 17 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Author Response 31 Oct 2022
Tim Hardman, Niche Science and Technology, London, UK
1) Abstract
Comment:
The main results were obtained by quantitative meta-analysis. It would be appropriate to state it
also in the abstract.
Response:
The initial wording of the abstract was unintentionally misleading and placed undue
emphasis on the term ‘meta-analysis’. The main results of this study were obtained through
systematic review and consisted of various point estimates from single trials/trial arms. The
pooled rate differences discussed, and incorporated in Figure3, are averages of the rate
difference estimates from the involved trials, weighted by their inverse variance. This
method was adopted over other techniques, such as unweighted average, and overall
median, due to its superior accuracy. The results of this method are purely descriptive in
nature, offering no particular conclusion beyond the expected result that the PO vaccine
and comparators are similar in reactogenicity.
The wording has been altered to more accurately portray the importance of anything
related to meta-analysis.
2) Introduction
Comment:
It will be suitable to better describe azoximer bromide, i.e. if it is used in some medical products,
if it is a pharmacopoeial substance, etc.
Response: Additional information has been added to the Introduction to briefly expand
upon the usages of azoximer bromide.
3) Materials and methods
Comment 1: A meta-analysis was conducted, therefore the MOOSE assessment (Meta-analysis of

Page 18 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Observational Studies in Epidemiology) is missing.
Response: As mentioned in the earlier response, the term ‘meta-analysis’ was afforded
undue importance. Originally the manuscript incorporated both a systemic review and
meta-analysis, with the latter becoming less important and ultimately relegated into a
hypothesis-creating tool as opposed to a central component of the study, as the significance
of the data identified by the systematic review became more apparent.
As such, the full MOOSE assessment was determined to be extraneous to the study in the
context of the data from which the manuscript’s conclusions are drawn.
Comment 2: In addition, the authors omitted the bias risk assessment according to the Grading
of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. It is not clear
if the study outcome can be burdened by this risk of bias.
Response:
As mentioned earlier, the importance of the meta-analysis in this manuscript was over-
stated, with the results being generated by a systematic review. As such the bias risk
assessment was not determined to be necessary for the finished manuscript.
Comment 3: The fixed-effects method is applied in the case of studies' homogeneity. There is no
explanation of the I-V method, i.e. the selection criteria. Furthermore, the random-effects method
helps to evaluate the literary bias. Therefore, both results are required.
Response:
The I-V method, and random effects methods were both part of the meta-analysis, which, as
mentioned, was relegated to a hypothesis-creating tool only.
4) Results
Comment:
Page 13, line 268: "The respective ratios included 1.0...", this should read: "The confidence interval
of appropriate ratios included…".
Response:
Thank you for pointing out this oversight, a more accurate phrasing of the sentence that is
closer to its original intent, has been drafted.
5) Discussion
Comment:
Influenza vaccine is a specific vaccine depending on seasonal influenza strains changing every
year.
Therefore, it should be discussed whether this specific feature of influenza seasons had an effect
on the immunogenicity and, possibly, the safety of the adjuvanted influenza vaccine being
evaluated.

Page 19 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022

Response:
This is an excellent point to raise and has been added to the potential limitations of this
study. Members of the authorship have conducted some investigations into the impact of
these features of influenza in the context of a different adjuvant, but the level of data
available in this study was insufficient to investigate it here.
Competing Interests: RK is chief executive officer of Fluconsult – Vaccine Consultancy; PN is
CEO of Vaccine Advice; WEPB has held consultancies with pharmaceutical companies, his
contribution to this work is based on a consultancy with Fluconsult; TH, DAL, SAK and MPK
report no conflict of interest. Fluconsult proposed the research question and provided the
necessary documents and was involved in the decision to submit for publication, but had no
part in data analysis or interpretation.
The benefits of publishing with F1000Research:
Your article is published within days, with no editorial bias•
You can publish traditional articles, null/negative results, case reports, data notes and more•
The peer review process is transparent and collaborative•
Your article is indexed in PubMed after passing peer review•
Dedicated customer support at every stage•
For pre-submission enquiries, contact research@f1000.com

Page 20 of 20
F1000Research 2022, 11:259 Last updated: 17 NOV 2022