Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39726670›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Acceptance and safety of the RSV-preventive treatment of newborns with nirsevimab in the maternity department: a prospective longitudinal cohort study in France.

Charlotte Ocana de Sentuary, Clara Testard, Marion Lagrée, Maxime Leroy, Lisa Gasnier, Alicia Enes-Dias, Constance Leruste, Diariatou Diallo, Michael Génin, Thameur Rakza and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Charlotte Ocana de SentuaryCHU Lille, Service de Pédiatrie de Maternité, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Clara TestardCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Marion LagréeCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Maxime LeroyCHU Lille, Département de Biostatistiques, F-59000, Lille, France.
Lisa GasnierCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Alicia Enes-DiasCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Constance LerusteCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Diariatou DialloCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
Michael GéninCHU Lille, Département de Biostatistiques, F-59000, Lille, France.
Thameur RakzaCHU Lille, Service de Pédiatrie de Maternité, Jeanne de Flandre Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.
François DubosCHU Lille, Urgences Pédiatriques & Maladies Infectieuses, Roger Salengro Hospital, F-59000, Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the acceptance and safety of the treatment of newborns with nirsevimab (a long-acting monoclonal antibody designed to prevent respiratory syncytial virus infections) during the first season of implementation. Methods: A longitudinal, prospective, single-centre cohort study was conducted from September 18th, 2023, to January 23rd, 2024 at Lille University Hospital (Lille, France). All newborns admitted to the hospital's maternity department during the study period and whose parents agreed to participate in the study were included. Parents were asked to state whether or not they agreed for their infant to receive nirsevimab. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) 2 h after nirsevimab treatment and 7, 14 and 30 days after discharge was documented by the mother. The primary endpoint was the nirsevimab treatment acceptance rate. The secondary endpoints were the variables associated with the acceptance of nirsevimab, the reasons for accepting or refusing nirsevimab, and the treatment's real-life safety, relative to a non-treated control group of newborns. Findings: Of the 1730 infants born in the hospital during the study period, 477 met all the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The nirsevimab acceptance rate [95% confidence interval] was 91.6% [89.1%-94.2%]. In a multivariable analysis, the mother's age, lower parity and having a partner in work were significantly associated with nirsevimab acceptance. The most common reason for accepting treatment was "to protect my baby", and the most common reason for refusing treatment was the lack of long-term data on nirsevimab. The nirsevimab and control groups did not differ significantly in terms of the types and frequencies of AEs. At least one serious AE was reported for 9.4% of the infants in the nirsevimab group and for 10.3% in the control group. None of the serious AEs were considered to be related to nirsevimab treatment. Interpretation: The nirsevimab acceptance rate for newborns in the maternity unit was high during the first season of implementation. The safety profile was very good, with no significant differences between the nirsevimab group and the control group. Funding: None.

Indexed as

AcceptanceNewbornNirsevimabRespiratory syncytial virusSafety

Identifiers

PMID39726670
PMCPMC11669793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.