ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Efficacy and effectiveness of long-acting monoclonal antibodies and vaccines against RSV: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies from 2018 to 2025.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) remains a leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and mortality among infants and older adults globally. The recent approval of long-acting monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and prefusion F protein-based vaccines marks a significant shift in the prevention landscape. This systematic review aims to synthesise current evidence regarding the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of RSV interventions. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials and observational studies published between January 1, 2018, and September 8, 2025, that evaluated palivizumab, nirsevimab, and RSV vaccines in infants, pregnant women, and older adults. The primary outcome was RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection (RSV-LRTI) hospitalisation. Pooled efficacy and effectiveness were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD420261285934. Findings: In infants, palivizumab demonstrated effectiveness against RSV-LRTI hospitalisation up to 180 days post-discharge that varied substantially by analytical approach: OR-based studies yielded a pooled effectiveness of approximately 81% (95% CI: 57%-91%), while rate-ratio-based cohort studies produced a non-statistically significant estimate of 34% (95% CI: -17%-63%). Nirsevimab showed pooled efficacy/effectiveness of approximately 80-85% through 150-180 days post-dose, with consistent results across OR-based (84%, 95% CI: 78%-88%) and rate-ratio-based analyses (79%, 95% CI: 72%-85%). Maternal vaccine efficacy within 180 days after birth was 72% (95% CI: 61%-79%) against severe RSV-LRTI compared to 67% (95% CI: 53%-77%) against RSV-LRTI hospitalisations. In older adults, vaccination demonstrated robust protection during the first RSV season following vaccination, with a pooled vaccine effectiveness of 77% (95% CI: 69%-82%) against RSV-LRTI hospitalisations. Interpretation: Prophylactic strategies demonstrate effectiveness in reducing the burden of RSV-associated diseases. Both palivizumab and nirsevimab provide robust protection against RSV-LRTI hospitalisation in their respective target populations. Additionally, both maternal and older adult vaccinations are effective in reducing RSV-associated diseases. Funding: General Research Fund, AIR@InnoHK.
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.