Back

Quantifying the association between neutralising antibodies and protection from RSV disease in infants and adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hogan, A. B.; Mitchell, A.; Stadler, E.; Chung, Y.; Reynaldi, A.; Elias, K. M.; Docken, S.; Khoury, D. S.; Schlub, T.; Davenport, M. P.; Cromer, D.

2026-02-15 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.02.13.26346212 medRxiv
Show abstract

A number of vaccines and long-acting monoclonal antibodies have been shown to be effective in the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. However, an immune correlate of protection for RSV has not yet been identified. We conducted a systematic review to identify published reports of immunogenicity and/or efficacy in vaccines and long-acting monoclonal antibodies against RSV and performed a meta-analysis on extracted data to identify any relationship between antibody increase and protection against RSV disease. We identified 130 relevant reports which we classified into an open access evidence map of RSV immunisation products. We found a strong correlation between the immunisation induced rise in neutralising antibody titres and efficacy ({rho}>0.7 for all comparisons, Spearman). For infants, we estimated that each 10-fold increase in neutralising antibody titre rise provides an additional 31% [95% CI 10%-47%], 47% [95% CI 36%-56%] and 57% [95% CI 45%-66%] reduction in the relative risk of symptomatic, moderate and severe disease respectively. For older adults, a 10-fold rise in antibody levels was associated with a 34% [95% CI -2%-57%], 50% [95% CI 22%-67%] and 63% [95% CI 36%-79%] reduction in the relative risk of RSV disease with 1, 2 and 3 symptoms respectively. These results align extremely well with findings from natural history studies and individual-based analysis of correlates of protection studies. This work paves the way for use of neutralising antibodies as a correlate of protection to guide the development, approval, and deployment of RSV vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.4%
2
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
10.1%
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.4%
4
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.9%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
7
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.7%
50% of probability mass above
8
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
Science Translational Medicine
111 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
10
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
JCI Insight
241 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
12
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
13
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
14
npj Vaccines
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.7%
17
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
18
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.7%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
20
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
21
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 47%
1.3%
23
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
24
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.9%
25
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
27
Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
28
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
29
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%