ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2026
How do Recent Population-Level RSVpreF Vaccine-Impact Results from the United Kingdom Relate to Previously Reported Vaccine Effectiveness Results?
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of hospitalizations among adults. Following bivalent respiratory syncytial virus prefusion F (RSVpreF) vaccine licensure and implementation, two studies have documented population-level reductions in RSV hospitalizations in the United Kingdom (UK), ranging from 30% to 62% in England and Scotland, respectively. Separately, vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies have been conducted in a number of settings. The question arises: Is there a relationship between these population-level reductions in RSV hospitalizations and real-world VE estimates from the first season post-implementation of bivalent RSVpreF, and do the impact findings reflect what would be expected from the VE estimates?
methodsPublicly available estimates for end-of-season-1 (EOS1) bivalent RSVpreF VE against RSV-related hospitalization were identified. Using these VE estimates, the expected vaccine impact across all potential vaccine coverage values was calculated using the formula impact = VE * uptake. We additionally estimated expected VE based on the impact findings from the RDD analyses.
resultsSix real-world studies evaluating bivalent RSVpreF VE were identified from the United States, UK, and Denmark; they documented 67-91% bivalent RSVpreF VE against RSV-related hospitalizations. Calculated impact using these six VE estimates closely aligned with the measured results estimated from the UK analyses. VEs calculated in turn from impact estimates ranged from 91% [Scotland] to 76% [England], closely aligning with expected results.
conclusionsThese early results indicate that the extent of expected population-level impact achieved can be reliably predicted from VE studies and national coverage data. Bivalent RSVpreF use can have a substantial public health and economic impact by reducing RSV-related hospitalizations, as seen in this initial UK vaccination program. Protection of older adults from severe RSV disease is off to a promising start and implementation efforts to boost vaccine uptake should be a priority for health care workers, public health practitioners, and policymakers.
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.