Comparative effectiveness of preventive strategies against medically-attended respiratory syncytial virus in U.S. infants during the first six months of life, 2023-2025

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Key points Question Among infants eligible to receive protection from maternal vaccination or infant long-acting monoclonal antibodies, what is the effectiveness RSV preventive strategies when accounting for real-world delays in administration? Findings In this target trial emulation study of 120,586 mother-infant pairs from U.S. claims data, long-acting monoclonal antibody effectiveness was sensitive to implementation delays, rendering preventive strategies that protected infants at or close to birth more effective at preventing respiratory disease than a monoclonal antibody strategy that reflected real-world implementation. Meaning Strategies, such as maternal vaccination or monoclonal antibodies provided within the first week of life, that protect infants at birth or close to birth are especially valuable in settings where delayed long-acting monoclonal antibody receipt is likely. Importance Maternal vaccination and long-acting monoclonal antibodies are now available in the U.S. to prevent RSV. Long-acting monoclonal antibody administration in the U.S. commonly occurs after hospital discharge in outpatient settings, leaving some infants unprotected early in life when severe RSV risk is highest. Comparative effectiveness between the two interventions and whether delays affect effectiveness estimates have not been quantified. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of infant long-acting monoclonal antibody strategies and a maternal vaccination strategy, each compared to no intervention, and the comparative effectiveness of intervention strategies when accounting for real-world delays in monoclonal antibody receipt. Design Cohort study using target trial emulation to compare four strategies for prevention of RSV-related outcomes. Setting The U.S. between 2023 and 2025 using a nationwide database of employer-sponsored commercial insurance claims. Participants 120,586 commercially insured mother-infants, whose infants were born in the U.S. during the 2023-2024 or 2024-2025 RSV season. Infants who could not be paired with their mother’s record, did not enroll in commercial insurance within 75 days from birth, received palivizumab, and had an implausible birth date were excluded. Interventions Comparison of four RSV prevention strategies: (i) maternal RSVpreF; (ii) long-acting monoclonal antibody given within the first week of life (mAb as intended); (iii) long-acting monoclonal antibody given within a six-month grace period from birth (mAb within grace period); and (iv) a control. Main outcomes and measures Effectiveness against first RSV-associated hospitalization and medically-attended RSV illness was summarized using adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and estimated using an inverse propensity weighting approach, with weights accounting for maternal age, maternal comorbidities affecting pregnancy, obstetric and newborn complications, season, region, and birth timing relative to October 1. A weighted Kaplan Meier estimator was used to estimate strategy-specific cumulative incidence of RSV outcomes over time. Results In the first five weeks of life, the mAb within grace period strategy doubled the hazard of RSV hospitalization (aHR: 2.0 [95% CI: 1.0-4.9]) and increased the hazard of medically-attended RSV (aHR: 1.6 [95% CI: 1.0-2.7]) compared to the maternal RSVpreF strategy. The hazard for RSV hospitalization was similar for the mAb as intended strategy compared to the maternal RSVpreF strategy (aHR = 0.9 [95% CI: 0.3-1.9]). Conclusions and relevance RSVpreF and monoclonal antibodies were similarly effective when monoclonal antibodies were administered close to birth, but when accounting for real-world delays in monoclonal antibody receipt, the maternal RSVpreF strategy was more effective than the mAb within grace period strategy.