Close

Sanofi to build new facility in Canada to increase global availability of high-dose influenza vaccine

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

Sanofi announced an investment of more than €600 million in a new vaccine manufacturing facility at its existing site in Toronto, Canada. The investment in a new facility will provide additional antigen and filling capacity for Sanofi’s Fluzone® High-Dose Quadrivalent influenza vaccine, helping to increase supply availability in Canada, the United States and Europe.

“As a leading vaccines Company, we continuously look ahead to address the fast-growing demand for those influenza vaccines that have demonstrated clinical superiority against standard-dose vaccines. Fluzone High-Dose provides a long-term competitive advantage and this new investment will ensure more seniors around the world are better protected against influenza and its complications. In addition, it will be a key resource to assist against future pandemics,” said Paul Hudson, Chief Executive Officer, Sanofi. “We welcome the ongoing partnership with the Canadian authorities, who supported us to make today’s great news a reality; this will make the country, which has a strong legacy in vaccines research and development, one of our key hubs in our effort to protect and improve human health across the globe.”

François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said, “Today’s announcement demonstrates Canada’s ability to attract foreign investment and to develop facilities with made-in-Canada solutions. This once-in-a-generation investment shows our government’s commitment to rebuilding Canada’s domestic biomanufacturing sector, focusing on both short-term strategic solutions and a long?term vision. By investing in this project, our government is helping to keep expertise in Canada, creating and maintaining highly skilled jobs, and securing the health and safety of Canadians. By fostering an environment where companies can invest and grow, leading life sciences firms like Sanofi are increasingly looking to this country to establish their manufacturing facilities,”

Sanofi expects this new facility to be operational in 2026, following design, construction, testing and qualification of the facility and equipment.

Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent influenza vaccine is currently manufactured exclusively by Sanofi Pasteur, Sanofi’s vaccines global business unit, at its Swiftwater, Pennsylvania Site in the United States. Sanofi Pasteur has been continuously investing in expanding manufacturing capabilities for influenza vaccines. Two new, additional facilities in Swiftwater, Pa., US and Val-de-Reuil, France will start to operate in the coming years.

Editor’s Note: This investment in a new vaccine manufacturing facility further demonstrates Sanofi’s overall growth strategy, with vaccines contributing as a key growth driver through differentiated products, market expansion and new launches.

About Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent influenza vaccine

Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent influenza vaccine is available in the United States and some European countries, and will be available in Canada in 2021, for use in adults 65 years and older, and has also been approved in Australia. The vaccine has received marketing authorizations in 25 countries in Europe (under the name Efluelda® outside of the UK) for use in adults 60 years of age and older. The high-dose vaccine has four times more antigen than standard-dose vaccine and is specifically designed to provide superior protection against influenza for older adults.ii Older adults have an elevated risk of pneumonia, heart attack and stroke following influenza and are at the greatest risk of influenza-related hospitalization and death.

Sanofi Pasteur’s High-Dose influenza vaccine has earned recommendations for use over standard-dose influenza vaccine in individual adults 65 years and older by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) in Canadaiii, along with a recommendation for priority use in people 60 years of age and older by Germany’s Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO).iv Fluzone High-Dose Trivalent influenza vaccine demonstrated superior protection against influenza in adults aged 65 and above compared to standard-dose formulationv.

About the Sanofi Pasteur Canadian Facilities

Founded as the Connaught Antitoxin Laboratories and University Farm in 1917, Sanofi Pasteur’s Canadian facility has supported numerous scientific breakthroughs while making significant public health contributions. One hundred years ago, the Toronto Site was home to some of the initial research for the discovery of insulin, as well as large-scale commercial insulin production for all of Canada until the 1980s. It also produced a highly accessible antitoxin for diphtheria, the leading public health threat to Canadian children in the early 1900s, and was an important partner in the eradication of polio in North America and smallpox around the world.

In 2018, Sanofi made another historic investment at the Toronto Site, to establish one of the most advanced vaccine bulk manufacturing facilities in the world. At the time, this was the largest investment ever made by Sanofi globally, at approximately €335 million. This manufacturing facility will produce seven antigens: five-component-pertussis, plus diphtheria and tetanus, to help meet global demand for more life-saving vaccines for children and adults worldwide. License approval for the United States and Canada is expected in 2024 for the five-component-pertussis and in 2025 for diphtheria and tetanus.

Sanofi Pasteur’s commitment to improve influenza prevention

As the leading manufacturer of influenza vaccines, Sanofi Pasteur is committed to researching and developing differentiated and proven solutions to protect people of all ages and risk groups against influenza and its complications.

During the 2020-2021 influenza season, Sanofi Pasteur supported health authorities in efforts to strengthen influenza vaccination campaigns in the unique context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sanofi Pasteur delivered 20 percent more doses this year, reaching an unprecedented production level of 250 million doses, across its influenza vaccine portfolio. Eight countries in Europe, and Israel, procured Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent in 2020 – through special importation – to provide an additional protection to their older citizens

Sanofi Pasteur produces influenza vaccines each year?across five international sites: Swiftwater (Pennsylvania, United States), Pearl River (New York, United States), Val-de-Reuil (France), Ocoyoacac (Mexico) and Shenzhen (China). This makes Sanofi Pasteur the largest manufacturer of influenza vaccines in the world.

About Sanofi

Sanofi is dedicated to supporting people through their health challenges. We are a global biopharmaceutical company focused on human health. We prevent illness with vaccines, provide innovative treatments to fight pain and ease suffering. We stand by the few who suffer from rare diseases and the millions with long-term chronic conditions.

With more than 100,000 people in 100 countries, Sanofi is transforming scientific innovation into healthcare solutions around the globe.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »