Humans

Rationale: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a highly transmissible pathogen that causes varying degrees of respiratory illness across all age groups. The safety and efficacy profiles of available RSV vaccines, a critical consideration for their integration into public health strategies and clinical practice, remain uncertain.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of RSV vaccines compared to placebo, no intervention, vaccines for other respiratory infections, other RSV vaccines, or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) across all human populations.

Search methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP following standard systematic review methodology from 2000 to April 2024.

Eligibility criteria: We included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) involving all human populations comparing RSV vaccines with placebo, no intervention, vaccines for other respiratory infections, other RSV vaccines, or mAbs. We excluded studies focused on dose-finding schedules and immunogenicity assessment.

Outcomes: Benefits included frequency of RSV illness (both lower and upper respiratory illness) confirmed by laboratory tests (RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness); hospitalisation due to RSV disease (both lower and upper respiratory illness) confirmed by laboratory tests; mortality from illness caused by RSV (confirmed by laboratory test); all-cause mortality; and admission to an intensive care unit. Harms included serious adverse events (SAEs) related to vaccination, including neurological disorders such as Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Risk of bias: We assessed risk of bias in RCTs using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.

Synthesis methods: We used standard Cochrane methods.

Included studies: We identified 14 RCTs: five trials (101,825 participants) on older adults; three trials (12,010 participants) on maternal vaccination and effects on infants; one trial (300 participants) on women of childbearing age; and five trials (192 participants) on infants and children. We identified no NRSIs.

Synthesis of results: RSV prefusion vaccine versus placebo in older adults These vaccines reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with vaccine efficacy (VE) of 77% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.83; risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.30; 4 RCTs, 99,931 participants; high-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness with VE of 67% (95% CI 0.60 to 0.73; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.40; 3 RCTs, 94,339 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). RSV postfusion F protein-based vaccine versus placebo in older adults There is probably little to no difference in RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with VE of -0.37% (95% CI -1.96 to 0.37; RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.96; 1 RCT, 1894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated acute respiratory illness with VE of -0.07% (95% CI -1.15 to 0.47; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.15; 1 RCT, 1894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). Maternal RSV F protein-based vaccine versus placebo in infants These vaccines reduced medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness with VE of 54% (95% CI 0.28 to 0.71; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 12,010 participants; high-certainty evidence), medically attended RSV-associated severe lower respiratory tract illness with VE of 74% (95% CI 0.44 to 0.88; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.56; 3 RCTs, 12,010 participants; high-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation due to RSV disease with VE of 54% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73; 2 RCTs, 11,502 participants; high-certainty evidence) in infants. There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination in mothers and infants (low-certainty evidence). Live-attenuated RSV vaccines versus placebo in infants and children The evidence is very uncertain regarding all-cause medically attended acute respiratory illness (MAARI) with VE of 26% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.46; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.01; 5 RCTs, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and RSV-associated MAARI with VE of 38% (95% CI -0.24 to 0.69; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.24; 5 RCTs, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). RSV recombinant F nanoparticle vaccine versus placebo in women of childbearing age The evidence is very uncertain regarding new RSV infections with VE of 50% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.73; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.92; 1 RCT, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in mortality from illness caused by RSV, all-cause mortality, and SAEs related to vaccination (low-certainty evidence). Phase III trials consistently demonstrated low risk of bias. Whilst phase I and II trials occasionally raised concerns about selection bias in the randomisation process, the overall evidence was deemed robust.

Authors' conclusions: RSV prefusion vaccines reduced RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and acute respiratory illness in older adults. There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination in older adults. Maternal vaccination with RSV F protein-based vaccines reduced medically attended RSV-associated lower respiratory tract illness and severe cases in infants. There may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination in mothers and infants. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effects of RSV vaccine on women of childbearing age, and the effects of live-attenuated RSV vaccines on infants and children; there may be little to no difference in SAEs related to vaccination.

Funding: This review was funded by the EU4Health Programme under a service contract with the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA).

Registration: The review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023439128).

This JAMA Pediatrics Patient Page describes what parents should consider in deciding whether to have their child screened for high lipid levels.

Importance Obesity affects 1 in 5 children and adolescents, increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are among the few pharmacotherapy options available for this population, necessitating a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy and safety.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 RAs in children and adolescents (<18 years) with obesity, prediabetes, or T2D.

Data Sources A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from inception until February 28, 2025. Data analysis was completed from January 2025 to April 2025.

Study Selection RCTs comparing GLP-1 RAs to placebo in children and adolescents with obesity, overweight, prediabetes, or T2D with reported safety and efficacy data were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data on sample size, population, interventions, follow-up, and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). Efficacy outcomes (except lipids) were analyzed as estimated treatment differences, lipids as estimated treatment ratios, and safety via rate ratios. A random-effects inverse variance model was used for all outcomes.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy outcomes were change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (in percentage points), fasting glucose (in milligrams per deciliter), body weight (in kilograms), body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), BMI z scores or percentiles, BMI standard deviation score (SDS), lipid outcomes, and blood pressure. Exploratory efficacy outcomes included obstructive sleep apnea and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease. Safety outcomes included gastrointestinal adverse effects (GI AEs), infections, hepatobiliary disorders, suicidal ideation or behaviors, depression, hypoglycemia, and adverse event discontinuations.

Results A total of 18 RCTs (11 in obesity, 6 in T2D, and 1 in prediabetes) with 1402 participants (838 GLP-1 RA users and 564 placebo) were included (mean [range] age, 13.7 [6-17] years; 831 female participants (59.3%); median [IQR] treatment duration, 0.51 [0.25-1.00] years). GLP-1 RAs significantly reduced HbA1c (−0.44%; 95% CI, −0.68% to −0.21%), fasting glucose (−9.92 mg/dL; 95% CI, −16.20 to −3.64), body weight (−3.02 kg; 95% CI, −4.98 to −1.06), BMI (−1.45; 95% CI, −2.40 to −0.49), BMI SDS (−0.20; 95% CI, −0.36 to −0.05), BMI percentile (−7.24%; 95% CI, −12.97% to −1.51%), and systolic blood pressure (−2.73 mm Hg; 95% CI, −4.04 to −1.43) and increased GI AE (log[rate ratio] [RR], 0.75). Other AEs, including suicidal ideation or behaviors, showed no significant differences.

Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 trials, GLP-1 RAs significantly improved glycemic, weight, and cardiometabolic outcomes in children and adolescents with T2D or obesity. Available data over a relatively short follow-up suggested suicidal ideation or behaviors were not significantly different, although GI AEs warrant attention in long-term management.

Importance There are limited data on the effectiveness of mailed self-collection to increase cervical cancer screening (CCS) participation in underresourced health care settings.

Objective To compare the effectiveness of mailed self-collection kits, with and without patient navigation, to telephone reminders to increase CCS in a safety-net health system.

Design, Setting, and Participants This pragmatic, parallel, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial within a publicly funded safety-net health system in Houston, Texas, compared (1) telephone reminder (TR) for clinic-based screening, (2) TR with mailed self-collection (SC), and (3) TR with mailed SC and patient navigation among a random sample of CCS-eligible patients not up to date with CCS, including those with no CCS on record. The trial was conducted from February 20, 2020, to August 31, 2023.

Interventions All groups received a TR by a patient navigator to attend clinic-based CCS. In the SC and SC with patient navigation groups, participants were additionally mailed a self-collection kit to their home as an alternative to clinic-based CCS. In the SC with patient navigation group, the mailed kit was followed by a patient navigation telephone call.

Main Outcomes and Measures CCS participation was defined as attendance for clinic-based screening or return of a mailed self-collection kit within 6 months of randomization and determined through electronic health record review.

Results Of the 2474 participants in the intent-to-screen analyses (median [IQR] age, 49 [39-57] years), 2325 (94.0%) were from racial or ethnic minoritized populations (1655 [66.9%] identifying as Hispanic or Latino, 82 [3.3%] as non-Hispanic Asian, 535 [21.6%] as non-Hispanic Black or African American, and 53 [2.1%] as other or unknown race, including American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), and 1388 (56.1%) were covered by the county’s publicly funded financial assistance program. At 6 months, 144 of 828 participants (17.4%) in the TR group, 340 of 828 (41.1%) in the SC group, and 381 of 818 (46.6%) in the SC with patient navigation group had participated in CCS. Compared to TR, relative participation was 2.36 (95% CI, 1.99-2.80) times higher for SC and 2.68 (95% CI, 2.27-3.16) times higher for SC with patient navigation; screening difference was 23.7% (95% CI, 19.4%-27.9%) for SC and 29.2% (95% CI, 24.9%-33.5%) for SC with patient navigation.

Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial in a safety-net health system, SC was effective for increasing CCS participation among underscreened patients; there were modest additional gains from SC with patient navigation. The large increase in CCS participation using SC compared to TR suggest that SC should be considered in safety-net settings with suboptimal CCS coverage.

Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03898167