Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates RSV immunoprophylaxis impact on respiratory health in premature infants, suggesting a significant benefit.
Rationale . The development of respiratory function and an increase in the survival rate in children with extremely low and very low body weight with respiratory disorders and morphofunctional immaturity of the respiratory organs determines the frequent development of bronchopulmonary pathology in early childhood. These children are more often at risk for severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis, are hospitalized and undergo intensive therapy. Immunoprophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies is recognized as an effective measure in providing assistance to these children. Purpose of the study — evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of RSV immunoprophylaxis in reducing respiratory diseases in children aged 1–3 years. Materials and methods . A retro- and prospective analysis of morbidity in premature infants (gestational age — 240–336 weeks) in the early childhood period was conducted depending on immunization in the 1st year of life. The study included 322 children: 225 children received immunization, 97 did not. Results . It has been proven that immunoprophylaxis in children at risk in the 1st year reduces the incidence of acute respiratory infections (ARI), the risk of episodes of bronchial obstruction (ВО) and pneumonia at the age of 1–3 years. It has been demonstrated that the absence of immunoprophylaxis in the first year makes a significant contribution to the development of episodes of BO (AР = 81 %), pneumonia (AР = 58 %) at an early age. An inverse relationship has been shown between the frequency of ARI and the number of injections of monoclonal antibodies. Conclusion . The use of monoclonal antibodies in children at risk reduces the incidence of ARI, episodes of BO and pneumonia in early childhood.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ibragimova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: