Effectiveness of Nirsevimab Immunoprophylaxis Administered at Birth to Prevent Infant Hospitalisation for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is a frequent cause of hospitalisation in the first few months of life; however, this risk rapidly decreases with age. Nirsevimab immunoprophylaxis was approved in the European Union for the prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease in infants during their first RSV season. We evaluated the effectiveness of nirsevimab in preventing hospitalisations for confirmed RSV infection and the impact of a strategy of immunisation at birth. A population-based cohort study was performed in Navarre, Spain, where nirsevimab was offered at birth to all children born from October to December 2023. Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio of hospitalisation for PCR-confirmed RSV infection between infants who received and did not receive nirsevimab. Of 1177 infants studied, 1083 (92.0%) received nirsevimab. The risk of hospitalisation for RSV was 8.5% (8/94) among non-immunised infants versus 0.7% (8/1083) in those that were immunised. The estimated effectiveness of nirsevimab was 88.7% (95% confidence interval, 69.6–95.8). Immunisation at birth of infants born between October and December 2023 prevented one hospitalisation for every 15.3 immunised infants. Immunisation of children born from September to January might prevent 77.5% of preventable hospitalisations for RSV in infants born in 2023–2024. These results support the recommendation of nirsevimab immunisation at birth to children born during the RSV epidemic or in the months immediately before to prevent severe RSV infections and alleviate the overload of paediatric hospital resources

Impact of uterine manipulator on oncological outcome in endometrial cancer surgery.

There are limited data available to indicate whether oncological outcomes might be influenced by the uterine manipulator, which is used at the time of hysterectomy for minimally invasive surgery in patients with endometrial cancer. The current evidence derives from retrospective studies with limited sample sizes. Without substantial evidence to support its use, surgeons are required to make decisions about its use based only on their personal choice and surgical experience. To evaluate the use of the uterine manipulator on oncological outcomes after minimally invasive surgery, for apparent early-stage endometrial cancer. We performed a retrospective multicentric study to assess the oncological safety of uterine manipulator use in patients with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer, treated with minimally invasive surgery. The type of manipulator, surgical staging, histology, lymphovascular space invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, adjuvant treatment, recurrence, and pattern of recurrence were evaluated. The primary objective was to determine the relapse rate. The secondary objective was to determine recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and the pattern of recurrence. A total of 2661 women from 15 centers were included; 1756 patients underwent hysterectomy with a uterine manipulator and 905 without it. Both groups were balanced with respect to histology, tumor grade, myometrial invasion, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage, and adjuvant therapy. The rate of recurrence was 11.69% in the uterine manipulator group and 7.4% in the no-manipulator group (P In this study, the use of a uterine manipulator was associated with a worse oncological outcome in patients with uterus-confined endometrial cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics I-II) who underwent minimally invasive surgery. Prospective trials are essential to confirm these results