- Available through VFC*
- Covered by most health plans and Medicare Part B†
- CPT reimbursement codes
- Single-dose syringe: 90661
- Multi-dose vial: 90661
- INDICATION AND IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION
CONTRAINDICATIONS
Do not administer FLUAD or AFLURIA to anyone with a history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any component of the vaccine, including egg protein, or to a previous influenza vaccine.
Do not administer FLUCELVAX to anyone with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any component of the vaccine.
WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS
If Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has occurred within 6 weeks of receipt of previous influenza vaccine, the decision to give FLUAD, FLUCELVAX, or AFLURIA should be based on careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks.
Appropriate medical treatment must be immediately available to manage potential anaphylactic reactions following administration of FLUAD, FLUCELVAX, or AFLURIA.
Syncope (fainting) may occur in association with administration of injectable vaccines. Procedures should be in place to avoid injury from fainting.
The immune response to FLUAD, FLUCELVAX, and AFLURIA in immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressive therapy, may be lower than in immunocompetent individuals.
Vaccination with FLUAD, FLUCELVAX, or AFLURIA may not protect all vaccine recipients against influenza disease.
ADVERSE REACTIONS
FLUAD:
The most common (≥ 10%) local and systemic adverse reactions in adults 65 years of age and older who received FLUAD were injection site pain (25%), injection site tenderness (21%), myalgia (15%), fatigue (13%) and headache (13%). Other adverse events may occur.
FLUCELVAX:
Data for FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT are relevant to FLUCELVAX because both vaccines are manufactured using the same process and have overlapping compositions.
In children 6 months through 3 years of age who received FLUCELVAX QUADRIVALENT, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reactions were tenderness (28%), erythema (26%), induration (17%) and ecchymosis (11%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were irritability (28%), sleepiness (27%), diarrhea (18%) and change of eating habits (17%).
In children 4 through 8 years of age who received FLUCELVAX, the most commonly reported local injection-site adverse reactions were pain (29%) and erythema (11%). The most common systemic adverse reaction was fatigue (10%).
In children and adolescents 9 through 17 years of age who received FLUCELVAX, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reactions were pain (34%) and erythema (14%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were myalgia (15%) and headache (14%).
In adults 18 through 64 years of age who received FLUCELVAX, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reactions were pain (28%) and erythema (13%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were headache (16%), fatigue (12%), myalgia (11%) and malaise (10%).
In adults ≥ 65 years who received FLUCELVAX the most commonly reported injection-site reaction was erythema (10%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were fatigue (11%), headache (10%) and malaise (10%).
Other adverse events may occur.
AFLURIA:
Data for AFLURIA QUADRIVALENT are relevant to AFLURIA because both vaccines are manufactured using the same process and have overlapping compositions.
Administered by needle and syringe (AFLURIA QUADRIVALENT data):
In children 6 months through 35 months of age, the most commonly reported injection-site reactions were pain and redness (≥ 20%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were irritability (≥ 30%), diarrhea and loss of appetite (≥ 20%).
In children 36 through 59 months of age, the most commonly reported injection site reactions were pain (≥ 30%) and redness (≥ 20%). The most commonly reported systemic adverse reactions were malaise and fatigue, and diarrhea (≥ 10%).
In children 5 through 8 years, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reactions were pain (≥ 50%), redness and swelling (≥ 10%). The most common systemic adverse reaction was headache (≥ 10%).
In children 9 through 17 years, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reactions were pain (≥ 50%), redness and swelling (≥ 10%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were headache, myalgia, and malaise and fatigue (≥ 10%).
In adults 18 through 64 years, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reaction was pain (≥ 40%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were myalgia and headache (≥ 20%).
In adults 65 years of age and older, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reaction was pain (≥ 20%). The most common systemic adverse reaction was myalgia (≥ 10%).
Administered by the PharmaJet Stratis Needle-Free Injection System:
In adults 18 through 64 years of age, the most commonly reported injection-site adverse reactions were tenderness (≥ 80%), swelling, pain, redness (≥ 60%), itching (≥ 20%) and bruising (≥ 10%). The most common systemic adverse reactions were myalgia, malaise (≥ 30%), and headache (≥ 20%).
Other adverse events may occur.
To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact CSL Seqirus at 1-855-358-8966 or VAERS at 1-800-822-7967 or www.vaers.hhs.gov.
Before administration, please see the full US Prescribing Information for FLUAD, FLUCELVAX and AFLURIA.
PharmaJet® and STRATIS® are registered trademarks of PharmaJet.
References: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Key facts about seasonal flu vaccine. Accessed March 29, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/keyfacts.htm 2. Rajaram S, Boikos C, Gelone DK, Gandhi A. Influenza vaccines: the potential benefits of cell-culture isolation and manufacturing. Ther Adv Vaccines Immunother. 2020;8:2515135520908121. doi:10.1177/2515135520908121 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Influenza activity—United States, 2010-11 season, and composition of the 2011-12 influenza vaccine. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(21):705-712. 4. Gaglani M, Pruszynski J, Murthy K, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness against 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus differed by vaccine type during 2013-2014 in the United States. J Infect Dis. 2016;213(10):1546-1556. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiv577 5. Jackson ML, Chung JR, Jackson LA, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the United States during the 2015-2016 season. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(6):534-543. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1700153 6. Skowronski DM, Janjua NZ, De Serres G, et al. Low 2012-13 influenza vaccine effectiveness associated with mutation in the egg-adapted H3N2 vaccine strain not antigenic drift in circulating viruses. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92153. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092153 7. Zost SJ, Parkhouse K, Gumina ME, et al. Contemporary H3N2 influenza viruses have a glycosylation site that alters binding of antibodies elicited by egg-adapted vaccine strains. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(47):12578-12583. doi:10.1073/pnas.1712377114 8. Ohmit SE, Thompson MG, Petrie JG, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the 2011-2012 season: protection against each circulating virus and the effect of prior vaccination on estimates. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(3):319-327. doi:10.1093/cid/cit736 9. McLean HQ, Thompson MG, Sundaram ME, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the United States during 2012-2013: variable protection by age and virus type. J Infect Dis. 2015;211(10):1529-1540. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu647 10. Zimmerman RK, Nowalk MP, Chung J, et al. 2014-2015 influenza vaccine effectiveness in the United States by vaccine type. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(12):1564-1573. doi:10.1093/cid/ciw635 11. Rolfes MA, Flannery B, Chung JR, et al. Effects of influenza vaccination in the United States during the 2017–2018 influenza season. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;69(11):1845-1853. doi:10.1093/cid/ciz075 12. Flannery B, Kondor RJG, Chung JR, et al. Spread of antigenically drifted influenza A(H3N2) viruses and vaccine effectiveness in the United States during the 2018-2019 season. J Infect Dis. 2020;221(1):8-15. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiz543 13. Tenforde MW, Garten Kondor RJ, Chung JR, et al. Effect of antigenic drift on influenza vaccine effectiveness in the United States—2019-2020. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(11):e4244-e4250. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1884 14. Rockman S, Laurie K, Ong C, et al. Cell-based manufacturing technology increases antigenic match of influenza vaccine and results in improved vaccine effectiveness. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;11(1):52. doi:10.3390/vaccines11010052 15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cell-based flu vaccines. Accessed March 1, 2024. 16. Data on file. Seqirus Inc; 2023. 17. Divino V, Krishnarajah G, Pelton SI, et al. A real-world study evaluating the relative vaccine effectiveness of a cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared to egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine in the US during the 2017-18 influenza season. Vaccine 2020;38(40):6334-6343. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.07.023 18. Krishnarajah G, Divino V, Postma MJ, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes associated with cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine vs. standard-dose egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines during the 2018-19 influenza season in the United States. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;9(2):80. doi:10.3390/vaccines9020080 19. Divino V, Anupindi VR, DeKoven M, et al. A real-world clinical and economic analysis of cell-derived quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared to standard egg-derived influenza vaccines during the 2019-2020 influenza season in the United States. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;9(1):ofab604. doi:10.1093/ofid/ofab604 20. FLUCELVAX. Package insert. Seqirus Inc.