Safety and Efficacy of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) membrane protein F has become one of the major target proteins for RSV vaccine development, previous studies have identified safety issues with RSV vaccines in older adults. The causes of these issues remain unclear. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel RSV preF vaccine in preventing lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illnesses (RSV-ARIs) in older adults. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from 5 databases-PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Controlled Trials-published up to July 31, 2024. For categorical variables, we used the risk ratio; for continuous variables, we used the weighted mean difference or standardized mean difference. We extracted key study characteristics and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the impact of individual studies on pooled effects, and publication bias was examined with Egger and Begg tests. Results: Meta-analysis of 5 studies (101,825 older adults) showed a reduced LRTI incidence in the vaccinated group, with heterogeneity resolved after excluding 1 study. Analysis of 4 studies (99,931 participants) confirmed a lower RSV-ARI incidence with no heterogeneity. Safety analysis (14 studies, 76,695 participants) showed higher adverse events (AEs) in the vaccinated group, mainly injection-site reactions and vaccine-related AEs, but no significant difference in serious AEs. Subgroup analyses identified potential sources of AE heterogeneity, and sensitivity analyses confirmed the efficacy but suggested variability in the injection-site reactions. . Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the incidence of LRTI and RSV-ARI between the vaccine and placebo groups in older adults. However, no significant differences were observed in overall AEs or serious AEs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".