ReviewCurrent topics in microbiology and immunology2024
Controlled Human Infection Challenge Studies with RSV.
Review in Current topics in microbiology and immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catching our breath: development of interventions and therapies for respiratory syncytial virus.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2026Review
- Sex Differences in Asthma Pathogenesis.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- The Development of Animal Models for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Infection and Enhanced RSV Disease.Viruses · 2024Review
- A research and development (R&D) roadmap for broadly protective coronavirus vaccines: A pandemic preparedness strategy.Vaccine · 2023Review
- T cells, more than antibodies, may prevent symptoms developing from respiratory syncytial virus infections in older adults.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite considerable momentum in the development of RSV vaccines and therapeutics, there remain substantial barriers to the development and licensing of effective agents, particularly in high-risk populations. The unique immunobiology of RSV and lack of clear protective immunological correlates has held back RSV vaccine development, which, therefore, depends on large and costly clinical trials to demonstrate efficacy. Studies involving the deliberate infection of human volunteers offer an intermediate step between pre-clinical and large-scale studies of natural infection. Human challenge has been used to demonstrate the potential efficacy of vaccines and antivirals while improving our understanding of the protective immunity against RSV infection. Early RSV human infection challenge studies determined the role of routes of administration and size of inoculum on the disease. However, inherent limitations, the use of highly attenuated/laboratory-adapted RSV strains and the continued evolutionary adaptation of RSV limits extrapolation of results to present-day vaccine testing. With advances in technology, it is now possible to perform more detailed investigations of human mucosal immunity against RSV in experimentally infected adults and, more recently, older adults to optimise the design of vaccines and novel therapies. These studies identified defects in RSV-induced humoral and CD8+ T cell immunity that may partly explain susceptibility to recurrent RSV infection. We discuss the insights from human infection challenge models, ethical and logistical considerations, potential benefits, and role in streamlining and accelerating novel antivirals and vaccines against RSV. Finally, we consider how human challenges might be extended to include relevant at-risk populations.
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.