Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42541670›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2026

AS01

Catherine Tregunno, Quentin Deraedt, Susanna Cuadripani, Céline Verheust, Philip Bryan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Catherine TregunnoGSK, London, UK.
Quentin DeraedtGSK, Av. Fleming 20, 1300, Wavre, Belgium. quentin.x.deraedt@gsk.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9226-2777
Susanna CuadripaniGSK, Stevenage, UK.
Céline VerheustGSK, Av. Fleming 20, 1300, Wavre, Belgium.
Philip BryanGSK, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe AS01

methodsWe conducted a review of post-marketing safety surveillance data following adjuvanted RSVPreF3 administration. Spontaneous adverse events (AEs) that were reported worldwide since the first approval (3 May, 2023) to 2 May, 2025 in the GSK global safety database were analyzed.

resultsUp to 2 May, 2025, 13.4 million doses of adjuvanted RSVPreF3 were distributed globally. A total of 2861 spontaneous reports, including 7012 AEs (serious: 11.0%), were received. The most frequent AEs consisted mainly of non-serious reactogenic events. Of all reports, 1164 described vaccination errors, with most frequent errors consisting of either wrong product administration (N = 243) or administration to patients of an inappropriate age (N = 204). The majority (90.3%) of vaccination error reports were not associated with any other AEs. Adjuvanted RSVPreF3 was erroneously administered to pregnant individuals in 415 cases; most reports (95.2%) occurred without associated AEs. Observed-to-expected analysis of reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome (N = 37) did not suggest an increased risk compared to background incidence of this event and the reports of atrial fibrillation (N = 29) did not indicate an excess risk.

conclusionsReview of the post-marketing surveillance data from 2 years of exposure to adjuvanted RSVPreF3 showed that the safety profile of the vaccine is consistent with that observed in clinical trials supporting an unchanged and favorable benefit-risk profile for the vaccine. Additional post-marketing surveillance is ongoing to further evaluate a potential risk of rare AEs, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, following adjuvanted RSVPreF3 vaccination.

Identifiers

PMID42541670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.