ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2025
Estimating the Public Health and Economic Impact of Immunisation with Nirsevimab or Maternal Immunisation for the Prevention of RSV-Related Outcomes Over Infants' First RSV Season in the UK.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Impact of Nirsevimab on Pediatric RSV-Related Lower Respiratory Tract Infections: A Retrospective Pre-Post Observational Study in Tuscany, Italy.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) poses a significant health burden on infants, particularly during their first RSV season. Immunoprophylactic strategies, such as the administration of nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, have been developed to prevent RSV lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD). This study evaluated the public health and economic impact of nirsevimab or maternal immunisation (MI) compared with standard of practice (SoP) in the United Kingdom (UK).
methodsA static decision-analytic model was employed to track the UK birth cohort during their first RSV season. The model incorporated UK-specific data on costs, epidemiology and healthcare resource utilisation. Three strategies were compared: historical SoP (pre-September 2024), universal immunisation with nirsevimab and MI. Outcomes measured included RSV-related primary care (PC) visits, accident and emergency (AE) visits, hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and deaths. The model also considered the impact of recurrent wheezing episodes, all-cause LRTD hospitalisations and non-medically attended RSV-LRTDs.
resultsUnder the current SoP, RSV was estimated to cause 375,154 total health events and 24,360 RSV-LRTD hospitalisations (including ICU admissions) annually, resulting in an economic burden of £252 million. Universal immunisation with nirsevimab could prevent 208,691 total health events and 16,664 hospitalisations (including ICU admissions) and reduce costs by £105.7 million. MI showed a reduction in RSV-related outcomes but was less effective than nirsevimab, especially in preventing hospitalisations and ICU admissions or protecting infants born outside the RSV season.
conclusionsUniversal immunisation with nirsevimab for all infants during their first RSV season could significantly reduce both the health and economic burden of RSV in the UK. This strategy is more effective than MI, particularly in reducing severe RSV outcomes and protecting infants born outside the RSV season, thus offering substantial benefits across the infant population.
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.