\n<\/p>\n
January 23, 2026<\/p>\n
2 min read<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n \n \n Add topic to email alerts \n <\/span> \n <\/p>\n\n\n \n Receive an email when new articles are posted on \n <\/p>\n\n Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on .<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n “ \n data-action=”subscribe”> \n Subscribe \n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.<\/strong> <\/p>\nBack to Healio<\/button><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nKey takeaways:<\/h2>\n\nResearchers compared the outcomes of more than 40,000 infants who were immunized through nirsevimab or maternal RSV vaccination.<\/li>\nNirsevimab was associated with fewer severe outcomes than the maternal vaccine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nNirsevimab may offer infants stronger protection against severe respiratory syncytial virus than maternal vaccination, real-world data suggests.<\/p>\nMany studies have shown that both the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) and nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi) are effective at reducing infants\u2019 odds for severe RSV. The new study is the first to compare the two.<\/p>\n \n \n \n \n <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture> \n Data derived from Jabagi MJ, et al. JAMA. 2025;doi:10.1001\/jama.2025.24082. \n <\/figcaption> \n <\/figure>\n\u201cWhat surprised us most was the magnitude and consistency of the difference we observed in real-world conditions,\u201d Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH, <\/b>an epidemiologist at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety and French National Health Insurance, told Healio. \u201cDespite maternal RSVpreF vaccination being highly efficacious in trials, passive infant immunization with nirsevimab was associated with a consistently lower risk of RSV-related hospitalization and severe outcomes across most analyses.\u201d<\/p>\nThe population-based cohort study included real-world data from 42,560 infants (51.7% boys; mean age, 3.7 days; standard deviation [SD], 1.4 days) who were born in France between Sept. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024. The researchers matched 21,280 infants who were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine with 21,280 infants who received nirsevimab to compare each immunization\u2019s effectiveness at preventing RSV-related complications. The median follow-up was 84 days (interquartile range, 70-99 days).<\/p>\nOverall, 481 infants (mean age, 38.9 days; SD, 22.2 days) were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Of these, 212 (44.1%) had received nirsevimab and 269 (55.9%) were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine. <\/p>\nAccording to Jabagi and colleagues, infants who received nirsevimab had a significantly lower risk for medically attended LRTI than those who were protected through maternal vaccination (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88). Infants who received nirsevimab were also less likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (aHR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.8), need oxygen therapy (HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) or require a ventilator (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.81). The researchers reported similar results in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\nNotably, infants in the nirsevimab group experienced a drastic decrease in risk for LRTI over time, according to the authors. During the first 7 days after enrollment, the risk for LRTI was nearly three times higher for infants in the nirsevimab group vs. the maternal vaccination group (aHR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69), however their risk was only half that of the maternal vaccination group after 60 days (aHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86).<\/p>\nBoth products are still relatively new \u2014 nirsevimab and the maternal vaccine were first implemented during the 2023-2024 respiratory season \u2014 and Jabagi said it will take several seasons\u2019 worth of data to evaluate the products\u2019 performance in real-world settings. <\/p>\n\u201cOur results should not be interpreted as evidence against maternal RSV vaccination,\u201d Jabagi said. \u201cInstead, they underscore that clinicians should individualize prevention strategies based on clinical context, access to care and timing within the RSV season. Both approaches remain valuable and may be complementary, particularly in efforts to maximize population-level protection against RSV.\u201d<\/p>\nFor more information:<\/h2>\n Marie-Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH,<\/b> can be reached at pediatrics@healio.com.<\/p>\n
\n Receive an email when new articles are posted on \n <\/p>\n\n Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on .<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n “ \n data-action=”subscribe”> \n Subscribe \n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.<\/strong> <\/p>\nBack to Healio<\/button><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nKey takeaways:<\/h2>\n\nResearchers compared the outcomes of more than 40,000 infants who were immunized through nirsevimab or maternal RSV vaccination.<\/li>\nNirsevimab was associated with fewer severe outcomes than the maternal vaccine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nNirsevimab may offer infants stronger protection against severe respiratory syncytial virus than maternal vaccination, real-world data suggests.<\/p>\nMany studies have shown that both the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) and nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi) are effective at reducing infants\u2019 odds for severe RSV. The new study is the first to compare the two.<\/p>\n \n \n \n \n <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture> \n Data derived from Jabagi MJ, et al. JAMA. 2025;doi:10.1001\/jama.2025.24082. \n <\/figcaption> \n <\/figure>\n\u201cWhat surprised us most was the magnitude and consistency of the difference we observed in real-world conditions,\u201d Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH, <\/b>an epidemiologist at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety and French National Health Insurance, told Healio. \u201cDespite maternal RSVpreF vaccination being highly efficacious in trials, passive infant immunization with nirsevimab was associated with a consistently lower risk of RSV-related hospitalization and severe outcomes across most analyses.\u201d<\/p>\nThe population-based cohort study included real-world data from 42,560 infants (51.7% boys; mean age, 3.7 days; standard deviation [SD], 1.4 days) who were born in France between Sept. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024. The researchers matched 21,280 infants who were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine with 21,280 infants who received nirsevimab to compare each immunization\u2019s effectiveness at preventing RSV-related complications. The median follow-up was 84 days (interquartile range, 70-99 days).<\/p>\nOverall, 481 infants (mean age, 38.9 days; SD, 22.2 days) were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Of these, 212 (44.1%) had received nirsevimab and 269 (55.9%) were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine. <\/p>\nAccording to Jabagi and colleagues, infants who received nirsevimab had a significantly lower risk for medically attended LRTI than those who were protected through maternal vaccination (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88). Infants who received nirsevimab were also less likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (aHR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.8), need oxygen therapy (HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) or require a ventilator (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.81). The researchers reported similar results in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\nNotably, infants in the nirsevimab group experienced a drastic decrease in risk for LRTI over time, according to the authors. During the first 7 days after enrollment, the risk for LRTI was nearly three times higher for infants in the nirsevimab group vs. the maternal vaccination group (aHR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69), however their risk was only half that of the maternal vaccination group after 60 days (aHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86).<\/p>\nBoth products are still relatively new \u2014 nirsevimab and the maternal vaccine were first implemented during the 2023-2024 respiratory season \u2014 and Jabagi said it will take several seasons\u2019 worth of data to evaluate the products\u2019 performance in real-world settings. <\/p>\n\u201cOur results should not be interpreted as evidence against maternal RSV vaccination,\u201d Jabagi said. \u201cInstead, they underscore that clinicians should individualize prevention strategies based on clinical context, access to care and timing within the RSV season. Both approaches remain valuable and may be complementary, particularly in efforts to maximize population-level protection against RSV.\u201d<\/p>\nFor more information:<\/h2>\n Marie-Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH,<\/b> can be reached at pediatrics@healio.com.<\/p>\n
“ \n data-action=”subscribe”> \n Subscribe \n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.<\/strong> <\/p>\nBack to Healio<\/button><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nKey takeaways:<\/h2>\n\nResearchers compared the outcomes of more than 40,000 infants who were immunized through nirsevimab or maternal RSV vaccination.<\/li>\nNirsevimab was associated with fewer severe outcomes than the maternal vaccine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nNirsevimab may offer infants stronger protection against severe respiratory syncytial virus than maternal vaccination, real-world data suggests.<\/p>\nMany studies have shown that both the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) and nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi) are effective at reducing infants\u2019 odds for severe RSV. The new study is the first to compare the two.<\/p>\n \n \n \n \n <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture> \n Data derived from Jabagi MJ, et al. JAMA. 2025;doi:10.1001\/jama.2025.24082. \n <\/figcaption> \n <\/figure>\n\u201cWhat surprised us most was the magnitude and consistency of the difference we observed in real-world conditions,\u201d Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH, <\/b>an epidemiologist at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety and French National Health Insurance, told Healio. \u201cDespite maternal RSVpreF vaccination being highly efficacious in trials, passive infant immunization with nirsevimab was associated with a consistently lower risk of RSV-related hospitalization and severe outcomes across most analyses.\u201d<\/p>\nThe population-based cohort study included real-world data from 42,560 infants (51.7% boys; mean age, 3.7 days; standard deviation [SD], 1.4 days) who were born in France between Sept. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024. The researchers matched 21,280 infants who were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine with 21,280 infants who received nirsevimab to compare each immunization\u2019s effectiveness at preventing RSV-related complications. The median follow-up was 84 days (interquartile range, 70-99 days).<\/p>\nOverall, 481 infants (mean age, 38.9 days; SD, 22.2 days) were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Of these, 212 (44.1%) had received nirsevimab and 269 (55.9%) were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine. <\/p>\nAccording to Jabagi and colleagues, infants who received nirsevimab had a significantly lower risk for medically attended LRTI than those who were protected through maternal vaccination (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88). Infants who received nirsevimab were also less likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (aHR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.8), need oxygen therapy (HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) or require a ventilator (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.81). The researchers reported similar results in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\nNotably, infants in the nirsevimab group experienced a drastic decrease in risk for LRTI over time, according to the authors. During the first 7 days after enrollment, the risk for LRTI was nearly three times higher for infants in the nirsevimab group vs. the maternal vaccination group (aHR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69), however their risk was only half that of the maternal vaccination group after 60 days (aHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86).<\/p>\nBoth products are still relatively new \u2014 nirsevimab and the maternal vaccine were first implemented during the 2023-2024 respiratory season \u2014 and Jabagi said it will take several seasons\u2019 worth of data to evaluate the products\u2019 performance in real-world settings. <\/p>\n\u201cOur results should not be interpreted as evidence against maternal RSV vaccination,\u201d Jabagi said. \u201cInstead, they underscore that clinicians should individualize prevention strategies based on clinical context, access to care and timing within the RSV season. Both approaches remain valuable and may be complementary, particularly in efforts to maximize population-level protection against RSV.\u201d<\/p>\nFor more information:<\/h2>\n Marie-Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH,<\/b> can be reached at pediatrics@healio.com.<\/p>\n
Back to Healio<\/button><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\nKey takeaways:<\/h2>\n\nResearchers compared the outcomes of more than 40,000 infants who were immunized through nirsevimab or maternal RSV vaccination.<\/li>\nNirsevimab was associated with fewer severe outcomes than the maternal vaccine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nNirsevimab may offer infants stronger protection against severe respiratory syncytial virus than maternal vaccination, real-world data suggests.<\/p>\nMany studies have shown that both the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) and nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi) are effective at reducing infants\u2019 odds for severe RSV. The new study is the first to compare the two.<\/p>\n \n \n \n \n <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture> \n Data derived from Jabagi MJ, et al. JAMA. 2025;doi:10.1001\/jama.2025.24082. \n <\/figcaption> \n <\/figure>\n\u201cWhat surprised us most was the magnitude and consistency of the difference we observed in real-world conditions,\u201d Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH, <\/b>an epidemiologist at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety and French National Health Insurance, told Healio. \u201cDespite maternal RSVpreF vaccination being highly efficacious in trials, passive infant immunization with nirsevimab was associated with a consistently lower risk of RSV-related hospitalization and severe outcomes across most analyses.\u201d<\/p>\nThe population-based cohort study included real-world data from 42,560 infants (51.7% boys; mean age, 3.7 days; standard deviation [SD], 1.4 days) who were born in France between Sept. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024. The researchers matched 21,280 infants who were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine with 21,280 infants who received nirsevimab to compare each immunization\u2019s effectiveness at preventing RSV-related complications. The median follow-up was 84 days (interquartile range, 70-99 days).<\/p>\nOverall, 481 infants (mean age, 38.9 days; SD, 22.2 days) were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Of these, 212 (44.1%) had received nirsevimab and 269 (55.9%) were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine. <\/p>\nAccording to Jabagi and colleagues, infants who received nirsevimab had a significantly lower risk for medically attended LRTI than those who were protected through maternal vaccination (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88). Infants who received nirsevimab were also less likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (aHR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.8), need oxygen therapy (HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) or require a ventilator (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.81). The researchers reported similar results in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\nNotably, infants in the nirsevimab group experienced a drastic decrease in risk for LRTI over time, according to the authors. During the first 7 days after enrollment, the risk for LRTI was nearly three times higher for infants in the nirsevimab group vs. the maternal vaccination group (aHR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69), however their risk was only half that of the maternal vaccination group after 60 days (aHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86).<\/p>\nBoth products are still relatively new \u2014 nirsevimab and the maternal vaccine were first implemented during the 2023-2024 respiratory season \u2014 and Jabagi said it will take several seasons\u2019 worth of data to evaluate the products\u2019 performance in real-world settings. <\/p>\n\u201cOur results should not be interpreted as evidence against maternal RSV vaccination,\u201d Jabagi said. \u201cInstead, they underscore that clinicians should individualize prevention strategies based on clinical context, access to care and timing within the RSV season. Both approaches remain valuable and may be complementary, particularly in efforts to maximize population-level protection against RSV.\u201d<\/p>\nFor more information:<\/h2>\n Marie-Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH,<\/b> can be reached at pediatrics@healio.com.<\/p>\n
Nirsevimab may offer infants stronger protection against severe respiratory syncytial virus than maternal vaccination, real-world data suggests.<\/p>\n
Many studies have shown that both the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) and nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi) are effective at reducing infants\u2019 odds for severe RSV. The new study is the first to compare the two.<\/p>\n \n \n \n \n <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture> \n Data derived from Jabagi MJ, et al. JAMA. 2025;doi:10.1001\/jama.2025.24082. \n <\/figcaption> \n <\/figure>\n\u201cWhat surprised us most was the magnitude and consistency of the difference we observed in real-world conditions,\u201d Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH, <\/b>an epidemiologist at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety and French National Health Insurance, told Healio. \u201cDespite maternal RSVpreF vaccination being highly efficacious in trials, passive infant immunization with nirsevimab was associated with a consistently lower risk of RSV-related hospitalization and severe outcomes across most analyses.\u201d<\/p>\nThe population-based cohort study included real-world data from 42,560 infants (51.7% boys; mean age, 3.7 days; standard deviation [SD], 1.4 days) who were born in France between Sept. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024. The researchers matched 21,280 infants who were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine with 21,280 infants who received nirsevimab to compare each immunization\u2019s effectiveness at preventing RSV-related complications. The median follow-up was 84 days (interquartile range, 70-99 days).<\/p>\nOverall, 481 infants (mean age, 38.9 days; SD, 22.2 days) were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Of these, 212 (44.1%) had received nirsevimab and 269 (55.9%) were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine. <\/p>\nAccording to Jabagi and colleagues, infants who received nirsevimab had a significantly lower risk for medically attended LRTI than those who were protected through maternal vaccination (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88). Infants who received nirsevimab were also less likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (aHR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.8), need oxygen therapy (HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) or require a ventilator (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.81). The researchers reported similar results in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\nNotably, infants in the nirsevimab group experienced a drastic decrease in risk for LRTI over time, according to the authors. During the first 7 days after enrollment, the risk for LRTI was nearly three times higher for infants in the nirsevimab group vs. the maternal vaccination group (aHR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69), however their risk was only half that of the maternal vaccination group after 60 days (aHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86).<\/p>\nBoth products are still relatively new \u2014 nirsevimab and the maternal vaccine were first implemented during the 2023-2024 respiratory season \u2014 and Jabagi said it will take several seasons\u2019 worth of data to evaluate the products\u2019 performance in real-world settings. <\/p>\n\u201cOur results should not be interpreted as evidence against maternal RSV vaccination,\u201d Jabagi said. \u201cInstead, they underscore that clinicians should individualize prevention strategies based on clinical context, access to care and timing within the RSV season. Both approaches remain valuable and may be complementary, particularly in efforts to maximize population-level protection against RSV.\u201d<\/p>\nFor more information:<\/h2>\n Marie-Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH,<\/b> can be reached at pediatrics@healio.com.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat surprised us most was the magnitude and consistency of the difference we observed in real-world conditions,\u201d Marie Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH, <\/b>an epidemiologist at the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety and French National Health Insurance, told Healio. \u201cDespite maternal RSVpreF vaccination being highly efficacious in trials, passive infant immunization with nirsevimab was associated with a consistently lower risk of RSV-related hospitalization and severe outcomes across most analyses.\u201d<\/p>\n
The population-based cohort study included real-world data from 42,560 infants (51.7% boys; mean age, 3.7 days; standard deviation [SD], 1.4 days) who were born in France between Sept. 1, 2024, and Dec. 31, 2024. The researchers matched 21,280 infants who were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine with 21,280 infants who received nirsevimab to compare each immunization\u2019s effectiveness at preventing RSV-related complications. The median follow-up was 84 days (interquartile range, 70-99 days).<\/p>\n
Overall, 481 infants (mean age, 38.9 days; SD, 22.2 days) were hospitalized for RSV-related lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). Of these, 212 (44.1%) had received nirsevimab and 269 (55.9%) were exposed to the maternal RSV vaccine. <\/p>\n
According to Jabagi and colleagues, infants who received nirsevimab had a significantly lower risk for medically attended LRTI than those who were protected through maternal vaccination (adjusted HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88). Infants who received nirsevimab were also less likely to be admitted to the pediatric ICU (aHR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.8), need oxygen therapy (HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.81) or require a ventilator (HR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.4-0.81). The researchers reported similar results in subgroup and sensitivity analyses.<\/p>\n
Notably, infants in the nirsevimab group experienced a drastic decrease in risk for LRTI over time, according to the authors. During the first 7 days after enrollment, the risk for LRTI was nearly three times higher for infants in the nirsevimab group vs. the maternal vaccination group (aHR = 2.94; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69), however their risk was only half that of the maternal vaccination group after 60 days (aHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.3-0.86).<\/p>\n
Both products are still relatively new \u2014 nirsevimab and the maternal vaccine were first implemented during the 2023-2024 respiratory season \u2014 and Jabagi said it will take several seasons\u2019 worth of data to evaluate the products\u2019 performance in real-world settings. <\/p>\n
\u201cOur results should not be interpreted as evidence against maternal RSV vaccination,\u201d Jabagi said. \u201cInstead, they underscore that clinicians should individualize prevention strategies based on clinical context, access to care and timing within the RSV season. Both approaches remain valuable and may be complementary, particularly in efforts to maximize population-level protection against RSV.\u201d<\/p>\n
Marie-Joelle Jabagi, PharmD, PhD, MPH,<\/b> can be reached at pediatrics@healio.com.<\/p>\n