A new study indicates that the use of nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, not only shields infants from severe respiratory illness caused by RSV but also significantly lowers their likelihood of being prescribed antibiotics during their first RSV season.
Nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody already recommended by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for infants entering their first RSV season, may do more than prevent severe respiratory illness. A new study in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that babies who received the shot were less likely to be prescribed antibiotics for common respiratory infections during their first season of exposure to respiratory syncytial virus. The findings suggest the preventive treatment could also support efforts to cut unnecessary antibiotic use.
Researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia examined electronic health records from 15,341 infants born between 1 April and 30 September across two RSV seasons. Using an emulated trial design, they compared infants who received nirsevimab with those who did not, tracking antibiotic prescriptions, bronchiolitis visits and RSV-related hospital admissions over six months. The analysis included infants in outpatient and inpatient care, reflecting how the drug is used in routine practice.
According to the study, nirsevimab was linked with a 14.4% drop in antibiotic prescribing for outpatient acute respiratory tract infections. The reduction was larger for bronchiolitis, at 40.3%, and the treatment was associated with a 69.4% fall in RSV-related hospitalisations. In exploratory analyses, the authors also reported lower antibiotic use for acute otitis media and viral respiratory infections.
The CDC says nirsevimab is recommended for infants younger than eight months who are born during, or enter, their first RSV season, and that it is intended to reduce the risk of serious lower respiratory tract disease and hospital admission. The new findings add a possible stewardship benefit to that public-health case, although the authors cautioned that their work was retrospective and limited to a regional paediatric network, which may affect how widely the results apply.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
