ArticleVaccine2020
Number needed to immunize to prevent RSV with extended half-life monoclonal antibody.
Article in Vaccine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Number Needed to Immunize (NNI) to Assess the Benefit of a Prophylaxis Intervention with Monoclonal Antibodies Against RSV.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Systematic Review and Expert Consensus on the Use of Long-acting Monoclonal Antibodies for Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease: ARMADA (Advancing RSV Management And Disease Awareness) Taskforce.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Preventing Respiratory Syncytial Virus in Children in France: A Narrative Review of the Importance of a Reinforced Partnership Between Parents, Healthcare Professionals, and Public Health Authorities.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2023Review
- Economic and clinical burden associated with respiratory syncytial virus and impact of universal immunization with nirsevimab in Italy.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is one of the most important respiratory pathogens in young children. Infants <6 months of age and infants and young children with extreme pre-term birth, and cardiac and pulmonary co-morbidities experience the highest incidence of severe RSV disease. There are no licensed vaccines; immunoprophylaxis is recommended for the highest risk children. Extended half-life RSV monoclonal antibodies (EHL-mAbs) are under development intended for immunization of all infants and high-risk children <2 years of age. We modeled the anticipated public health benefits of RSV EHL-mAb immunization using the number needed to immunize (NNI).
methodsWe combined RSV hospitalization, outpatient and outpatient lower respiratory tract infection (LRI) incidence estimates and a range of immunization efficacies to estimate the annual NNI. We calculated the absolute incidence rate reduction (ARR) by multiplying the incidence rates by immunization efficacy. NNI was calculated as the reciprocal of the ARR.
resultsFor an RSV EHL-mAb with 70% efficacy, 6-18 infants would need to be immunized to prevent one RSV-associated outpatient visit, and 13-33 infants would need to be immunized to prevent one RSV-associated LRI outpatient visit. To prevent one RSV-associated hospitalization, 37-85 infants 0-5 months of age, and 107-280 infants 6-11 months of age would need to be immunized.
conclusionsPublic health benefits, such as disease cases averted due to immunization, are essential elements in consideration of candidate vaccines for a national immunization program. An RSV EHL-mAb of moderate efficacy could have high impact. These data provide an additional perspective for public health decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.