ArticleVaccines2026
Estimating and Projecting Efficacy of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus Beyond Clinical Trial Periods.
Article in Vaccines, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have followed participants for up to 180 days, covering a typical single RSV season. However, to assess the full clinical impact of mAb administration, post-trial efficacy estimates are needed, particularly in countries where RSV circulation extends beyond six months.
methodsIn this study, we applied a previously published Bayesian framework to estimate how the level of protective efficacy against RSV provided by clesrovimab and nirsevimab changes over the first year after administration. Using this Bayesian framework, which modeled new infections as Poisson processes with a Gaussian process prior for the force of infection and a parametric waning function for the intervention arm, we estimated placebo incidence rates and posterior waning functions. We validated our estimates by calculating model-estimated cumulative trial-period efficacy using an Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) approach and by reconstructing event-free probability curves, comparing both with published clinical trial results.
resultsModel-derived cumulative efficacy estimates closely matched trial-reported results for both products. The model-projected instantaneous probability of being protected at one year-an extrapolation beyond the observed trial follow-up-was 24.6% (95% CrI: 1.6-57.0%) for clesrovimab and 12.8% (95% CrI: 1.2-44.4%) for nirsevimab, with substantially overlapping credible intervals.
conclusionsBoth RSV mAbs were projected to provide some level of protection throughout the first year following administration, with broadly similar levels of protection.
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.