Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 668

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and Safety of a Bivalent RSV Prefusion F Vaccine in Older Adults

Open access
Walsh, Edward E., Pérez Marc, Gonzalo, Zareba, Agnieszka M., Falsey, Ann R., Jiang, Qin, Patton, Michael, Polack, Fernando P., Llapur, Conrado, Doreski, Pablo A., Ilangovan, Kumar, Rämet, Mika, Fukushima, Yasushi, Hussen, Nazreen, Bont, Louis J., Cardona, Jose, DeHaan, Elliot, Castillo Villa, Giselle, Ingilizova, Marinela, Eiras, Daniel, Mikati, Tarek, Shah, Rupal N., Schneider, Katherine, Cooper, David, Koury, Kenneth, Lino, Maria-Maddalena, Anderson, Annaliesa S., Jansen, Kathrin U., Swanson, Kena A., Gurtman, Alejandra, Gruber, William C., Schmoele-Thoma, Beate·2023·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection causes considerable illness in older adults. The efficacy and safety of an investigational bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based (RSVpreF) vaccine in this population are unknown. METHODS: In this ongoing, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adults (≥60 years of age) to receive a single intramuscular injection of RSVpreF vaccine at a dose of 120 μg (RSV subgroups A and B, 60 μg each) or placebo. The two primary end points were vaccine efficacy against seasonal RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two or at least three signs or symptoms. The secondary end point was vaccine efficacy against RSV-associated acute respiratory illness. RESULTS: At the interim analysis (data-cutoff date, July 14, 2022), 34,284 participants had received RSVpreF vaccine (17,215 participants) or placebo (17,069 participants). RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with at least two signs or symptoms occurred in 11 participants in the vaccine group (1.19 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 33 participants in the placebo group (3.58 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) (vaccine efficacy, 66.7%; 96.66% confidence interval [CI], 28.8 to 85.8); 2 cases (0.22 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 14 cases (1.52 cases per 1000 person-years of observation), respectively, occurred with at least three signs or symptoms (vaccine efficacy, 85.7%; 96.66% CI, 32.0 to 98.7). RSV-associated acute respiratory illness occurred in 22 participants in the vaccine group (2.38 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) and 58 participants in the placebo group (6.30 cases per 1000 person-years of observation) (vaccine efficacy, 62.1%; 95% CI, 37.1 to 77.9). The incidence of local reactions was higher with vaccine (12%) than with placebo (7%); the incidences of systemic events were similar (27% and 26%, respectively). Similar rates of adverse events through 1 month after injection were reported (vaccine, 9.0%; placebo, 8.5%), with 1.4% and 1.0%, respectively, considered by the investigators to be injection-related. Severe or life-threatening adverse events were reported in 0.5% of vaccine recipients and 0.4% of placebo recipients. Serious adverse events were reported in 2.3% of participants in each group through the data-cutoff date. CONCLUSIONS: RSVpreF vaccine prevented RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness in adults (≥60 years of age), without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Pfizer; RENOIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05035212; EudraCT number, 2021-003693-31.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa2213836

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 668

Metadata

Authors
Walsh, E. E., Pérez Marc, G., Zareba, A. M., Falsey, A. R., Jiang, Q., Patton, M., Polack, F. P., Llapur, C., Doreski, P. A., Ilangovan, K., Rämet, M., Fukushima, Y., Hussen, N., Bont, L. J., Cardona, J., DeHaan, E., Castillo Villa, G., Ingilizova, M., Eiras, D., Mikati, T., Shah, R. N., Schneider, K., Cooper, D., Koury, K., Lino, M.-M., Anderson, A. S., Jansen, K. U., Swanson, K. A., Gurtman, A., Gruber, W. C., & Schmoele-Thoma, B.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2023-04-20
Volume
388
Issue
16
Pages
1465-1477
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W4362603786
Cited by
668
References
33
FWCI
111.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy and Safety of a Bivalent RSV Prefusion F Vaccine in Older Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa2213836
The paper
Walsh, E. E., Pérez Marc, G., Zareba, A. M., Falsey, A. R., Jiang, Q., Patton, M., Polack, F. P., Llapur, C., Doreski, P. A., Ilangovan, K., Rämet, M., Fukushima, Y., Hussen, N., Bont, L. J., Cardona, J., DeHaan, E., Castillo Villa, G., Ingilizova, M., Eiras, D., . . . Schmoele-Thoma, B. (2023). Efficacy and Safety of a Bivalent RSV Prefusion F Vaccine in Older Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2213836

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.