Systematic Review and Expert Consensus on the Use of Long-acting Monoclonal Antibodies for Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease: ARMADA (Advancing RSV Management And Disease Awareness) Taskforce
Rattachement africain : it, us, fr, hr, fi, gb, ca, es, ua, tr, sa, kr, sg, au, tw, mx, vn, ar, br, cl, Afrique du Sud. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Long-acting monoclonal antibodies (LAmAbs) could dramatically reduce the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease burden in children if implemented using clear, evidence-based recommendations. Methods: The ARMADA Taskforce-an international, multidisciplinary expert panel-undertook a systematic review to develop LAmAbs consensus recommendations for RSV disease prevention in children. Results: The Taskforce recommends LAmAbs for all infants aged <8 months in the absence of maternal RSV vaccination, preterm infants (<37 weeks' gestational age) aged <12 months, and children <24 months with high-risk conditions. Seasonal LAmAb administration is recommended, although in RSV-endemic countries decisions should be made locally concerning administration year-round or with peak RSV incidences. Conclusions: The Taskforce strongly endorses LAmAbs implementation based on their efficacy, effectiveness, and public health impact. These recommendations provide a blueprint to inform guidelines worldwide. Wider equitable access to LAmAbs at affordable prices, especially in low- and middle-income countries is needed to reduce the childhood RSV burden.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Systematic Review and Expert Consensus on the Use of Long-acting Monoclonal Antibodies for Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Disease: ARMADA (Advancing RSV Management And Disease Awareness) Taskforce
- Date Crossref
- 30/06/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.