SynthesisPloS one2025
Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of Lassa fever vaccines: A living systematic review and landscape analysis of vaccine candidates.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Local heterogeneity in Lassa fever serology in rural Nigeria: Implications for vaccine trial site selection.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Scaling Lassa Virus Dynamics within Anthropogenic Ecosystems (SCAPES) Study Protocol: a mixed-methods observational cohort study of humans, rodents, and landscapes in Nigeria.Wellcome open research · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLassa fever (LF) is an acute viral hemorrhagic illness endemic in West Africa, representing significant public health challenges, particularly for pregnant persons and children who experience higher morbidity and mortality. Although several vaccine candidates are being developed, no LF vaccine has been licensed yet.
methodsWe conducted a living systematic review (LSR) of the literature to evaluate the safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and immunogenicity of LF vaccines. We performed biweekly searches in major biomedical databases, trial registries, preprint servers, and other sources. Eligible studies included preclinical studies, clinical trials, and observational studies published from January 2014 to April 2025. Reviewer pairs screened studies extracted data (REDCap), and assessed risk of bias independently. Data synthesis involved random-effects pairwise and proportion meta-analyses (R software), with GRADE assessment of evidence certainty. PROSPERO registries: (CRD42024514513; CRD42024516754).
resultsSearches retrieved 1423 records, including 51 studies, 2 clinical trials in adults involving 88 vaccinated persons, and 49 preclinical studies of 30 vaccine candidates. Trials evaluated Recombinant Measles-Vectored (MV-LASV) and Recombinant Vesicular Stomatitis Virus-based (rVSVΔG-LASV-GPC) LF vaccine candidates. No published clinical trials were found to evaluate LF vaccines in special populations such as pregnant persons, infants, children, or adolescents. Although injection site reactogenicity was reported, no vaccine-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in study participants. Immunogenicity was robust in adults, with vaccines achieving around 95% seroconversion at 30 days. Preclinical data evaluated nine different platforms. Findings are disseminated via an interactive online dashboard (https://safeinpregnancy.org/living-systematic-review-lassa/).
conclusionCurrently, two LF vaccine candidates that have advanced to clinical trials exhibit high immunogenicity, but the safety profile in healthy adults is still limited. Clinical evidence in pregnant persons, infants, children, and adolescents is absent. Vaccine platforms of interest have been identified in preclinical studies, providing information on those that could advance to clinical studies.
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.