Evidence Hub

Efficacy of nirsevimab against respiratory syncytial virus lower respiratory tract infections in preterm and term infants, and pharmacokinetic extrapolation to infants with congenital heart disease and chronic lung disease: a pooled analysis of randomised controlled trials

E. Simőes, S. Madhi, W. Muller, V. Atanasova, M. Bosheva, F. Cabañas, Manuel Baca Cots, J. Domachowske et al.

The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2023

2,350 participants · 189 citations

Abstract

Background In a phase 2b trial and the phase 3 MELODY trial, nirsevimab, an extended half-life, monoclonal antibody against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), protected healthy infants born preterm or at full term against medically attended RSV lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). In the MEDLEY phase 2–3 trial in infants at higher risk for severe RSV infection, nirsevimab showed a similar safety profile to that of palivizumab. The aim of the current analysis was to assess the efficacy of nirsevimab using a weight-banded dosing regimen in infants born between 29 weeks gestational age and full term. Methods Infants enrolled in the phase 2b and MELODY trials were randomised (2:1) to receive a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab (infants weighing <5 kg received 50 mg; those weighing ≥5 kg received 100 mg) or placebo before the RSV season. Infants in MEDLEY were randomised (2:1) to receive one dose of nirsevimab (infants weighing <5 kg received 50 mg; those weighing ≥5 kg received 100 mg) followed by four monthly placebo doses, or five once-a-month intramuscular doses of palivizumab. We report a prespecified pooled efficacy analysis assessing the weight-banded dosing regimen proposed on the basis of the phase 2b and MELODY trials, in addition to extrapolated efficacy in infants with chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease, or extreme preterm birth (<29 weeks' gestational age) based on pharmacokinetic data from the phase 2–3 MEDLEY safety trial. For the pooled…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,350 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free