CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS VACCINE

All Clinical Trials for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00100373 ↗	RSV Challenge in Healthy Adults	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	N/A	2004-09-01	The purpose of this study is to measure the immune response (how the body fights infection) to an experimental preparation of live Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). A better understanding of this virus may be useful in development of vaccines and treatments. Participants will include 20 healthy adults age 21-40. Study procedures will include drawing blood, urine samples, respiratory exams, vital signs and temperature, diary cards, nasal mucus weight and nasal washes and swabs. All participants will receive vaccine via nose drops. Patients will participate in the study for about 2 months.
NCT01021397 ↗	Safety of and Immune Response to Recombinant Live Attenuated Parainfluenza Type 3 Virus Vaccine in Healthy Infants and Children	Completed	Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health	Phase 1	2009-11-01	Human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs) are a major health concern in infants and young children under 5 years of age, causing serious respiratory tract disease. The primary purpose of this study is to test the safety of and immune response to a new HPIV vaccine in healthy infants and children.
NCT01021397 ↗	Safety of and Immune Response to Recombinant Live Attenuated Parainfluenza Type 3 Virus Vaccine in Healthy Infants and Children	Completed	National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	Phase 1	2009-11-01	Human parainfluenza viruses (HPIVs) are a major health concern in infants and young children under 5 years of age, causing serious respiratory tract disease. The primary purpose of this study is to test the safety of and immune response to a new HPIV vaccine in healthy infants and children.
NCT01856205 ↗	Safety and Efficacy Study of Intravenous Immunoglobulin to Treat Japanese Encephalitis	Completed	B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences	Phase 2	2009-05-01	Japanese encephalitis is caused by a viral infection of the brain transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. Patients with Japanese encephalitis can rapidly develop worsening conscious level and seizures. Around a third will die from the infection and half of survivors have serious long-term neurological disability. The majority of those affected are children. There are many causes of viral encephalitis, however Japanese encephalitis virus is the most common cause worldwide with over 60,000 cases annually. It occurs over much of Asia and the geographical range is expanding. There is no specific treatment for Japanese encephalitis virus, although several have been trialed. In this study we examined the effect of a new treatment, called intravenous immunoglobulin, on children with Japanese encephalitis in Nepal. Prior studies have suggested intravenous immunoglobulin may neutralize Japanese encephalitis virus and suppress damaging inflammation in the brain. It has previously been used in individual cases but never examined in a randomized trial. There was recently a trial of IVIG in West Nile encephalitis in the United States, in which Professor Solomon was on the Scientific Advisory Committee. In this study we will look if intravenous immunoglobulin is safe in this context, and that this treatment may alter the way the immune system manages the infection. Therefore, in this pilot study we will test the hypothesis that IVIG can be safely given to children with suspected JE, with no increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo. The aim of this proposal is to conduct a pilot safety and tolerability randomized placebo controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in patients with Japanese encephalitis, to explore the relationship between JEV viral load, pro-inflammatory markers called cytokines and blood brain barrier markers, and the effect of IVIG on these relationships.
NCT01856205 ↗	Safety and Efficacy Study of Intravenous Immunoglobulin to Treat Japanese Encephalitis	Completed	Kanti Children's Hospital	Phase 2	2009-05-01	Japanese encephalitis is caused by a viral infection of the brain transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. Patients with Japanese encephalitis can rapidly develop worsening conscious level and seizures. Around a third will die from the infection and half of survivors have serious long-term neurological disability. The majority of those affected are children. There are many causes of viral encephalitis, however Japanese encephalitis virus is the most common cause worldwide with over 60,000 cases annually. It occurs over much of Asia and the geographical range is expanding. There is no specific treatment for Japanese encephalitis virus, although several have been trialed. In this study we examined the effect of a new treatment, called intravenous immunoglobulin, on children with Japanese encephalitis in Nepal. Prior studies have suggested intravenous immunoglobulin may neutralize Japanese encephalitis virus and suppress damaging inflammation in the brain. It has previously been used in individual cases but never examined in a randomized trial. There was recently a trial of IVIG in West Nile encephalitis in the United States, in which Professor Solomon was on the Scientific Advisory Committee. In this study we will look if intravenous immunoglobulin is safe in this context, and that this treatment may alter the way the immune system manages the infection. Therefore, in this pilot study we will test the hypothesis that IVIG can be safely given to children with suspected JE, with no increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo. The aim of this proposal is to conduct a pilot safety and tolerability randomized placebo controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in patients with Japanese encephalitis, to explore the relationship between JEV viral load, pro-inflammatory markers called cytokines and blood brain barrier markers, and the effect of IVIG on these relationships.
NCT01856205 ↗	Safety and Efficacy Study of Intravenous Immunoglobulin to Treat Japanese Encephalitis	Completed	University of Liverpool	Phase 2	2009-05-01	Japanese encephalitis is caused by a viral infection of the brain transmitted by the bite of an infected mosquito. Patients with Japanese encephalitis can rapidly develop worsening conscious level and seizures. Around a third will die from the infection and half of survivors have serious long-term neurological disability. The majority of those affected are children. There are many causes of viral encephalitis, however Japanese encephalitis virus is the most common cause worldwide with over 60,000 cases annually. It occurs over much of Asia and the geographical range is expanding. There is no specific treatment for Japanese encephalitis virus, although several have been trialed. In this study we examined the effect of a new treatment, called intravenous immunoglobulin, on children with Japanese encephalitis in Nepal. Prior studies have suggested intravenous immunoglobulin may neutralize Japanese encephalitis virus and suppress damaging inflammation in the brain. It has previously been used in individual cases but never examined in a randomized trial. There was recently a trial of IVIG in West Nile encephalitis in the United States, in which Professor Solomon was on the Scientific Advisory Committee. In this study we will look if intravenous immunoglobulin is safe in this context, and that this treatment may alter the way the immune system manages the infection. Therefore, in this pilot study we will test the hypothesis that IVIG can be safely given to children with suspected JE, with no increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo. The aim of this proposal is to conduct a pilot safety and tolerability randomized placebo controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in patients with Japanese encephalitis, to explore the relationship between JEV viral load, pro-inflammatory markers called cytokines and blood brain barrier markers, and the effect of IVIG on these relationships.

Clinical Trial Conditions for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine

Condition Name

Condition Name for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Intervention	Trials
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections	18
Respiratory Syncytial Virus	8
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV)	3
Acute Respiratory Tract Infections	2

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Intervention	Trials
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections	21
Virus Diseases	14
Respiratory Tract Infections	5
Infections	3

Clinical Trial Locations for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Location	Trials
United States	178
Canada	27
Germany	18
United Kingdom	17
Italy	15

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Location	Trials
Kansas	12
Texas	11
New York	11
California	11
Florida	9

Clinical Trial Progress for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
PHASE4	1
PHASE3	3
PHASE2	1

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Completed	16
Recruiting	8
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING	5

Clinical Trial Sponsors for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Sponsor	Trials
GlaxoSmithKline	17
ModernaTX, Inc.	4
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)	3

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for respiratory syncytial virus vaccine
Sponsor	Trials
Industry	33
Other	13
NIH	3

Last updated: May 11, 2026

Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Launch-Phase Projections (2026 Outlook)

The RSV vaccine market is split between (1) infant immunization via maternal RSVpreF or infant-directed products and (2) older-adult protection via vaccines using RSV F prefusion biology. Clinical development is active across multiple platforms, but commercialization is concentrated in a small number of late-stage assets. Near-term market share and revenue timing will hinge on: (a) FDA label scope (age, season, risk stratification), (b) payer contracting and sequence-of-care rules with monoclonal prophylaxis, and (c) supply readiness for the 2025 to 2027 seasons.

---

Which RSV vaccines are in clinical trials right now, and what are the latest readouts?

Late-stage infant immunization: maternal RSVpreF (GSK)

• Asset: RSVpreF maternal vaccine (GSK), marketed in the US as Arexvy for older adults; maternal program is part of the RSVpreF franchise development.
• Regulatory status (US): FDA approval exists for older adults; maternal indication status depends on label and submission timing, but RSVpreF biology has already been used in maternal clinical development.

Clinical trial update status: Without a specific, current pipeline dataset tied to the exact product labels, it is not possible to provide a complete, accurate “latest readouts” table across all RSV vaccine developers without risking factual errors.

Late-stage infant immunization: infant-directed candidates

Multiple developers are pursuing infant-directed RSV vaccines and combination strategies (vaccines or formulations intended for infants). The critical differentiator in clinical outcomes is prevention of severe RSV LRTD with a durable antibody response that lasts through peak season.

Clinical trial update status: A verified, source-backed update requires asset-level trial identifiers and dated readouts. That data is not available in the prompt.

Older adults: RSV F prefusion vaccines and next-gen boosters

• Key biology: RSV F prefusion stabilization (RSVpreF) drives neutralizing antibody titers and correlates with reduced medically attended RSV outcomes.
• Clinical endpoints: RSV-associated LRTD, severe RSV, hospitalization, and duration of protection across seasons.

Clinical trial update status: A complete update by developer requires a current trials registry pull by asset and date.

---

What is the Orange Book status of RSV vaccines, and do they have generic or biosimilar risk?

Are RSV vaccines substitutable by generics?

Vaccines are typically biological products under the Biologics framework, and generic “copies” are not directly analogous to small-molecule generics. For FDA competitive pathways:

• Generics risk: generally low in the classical Orange Book sense because vaccines rely on biologic manufacturing, characterization, and immunogenicity.
• Biosimilar risk: only applies to certain biologics that meet biosimilar criteria; vaccines may not map cleanly to biosimilar frameworks.

Orange Book listings

A credible answer requires the specific FDA product codes and label listings from the Orange Book/Biologics databases for the RSV vaccines in question. The prompt does not specify which marketed vaccine(s) are in scope or provides FDA product identifiers.

Result: No defensible Orange Book status can be stated without enumerating exact products and their listing details.

---

What patents protect RSV vaccines, and when do they expire?

Patent estate structure (typical for RSV F prefusion vaccines)

RSV vaccine patent portfolios usually split into:

1. Antigen composition and prefusion F variants
2. Formulation and stabilization (excipients, buffer, freeze-thaw stability, adjuvant systems)
3. Manufacturing methods (cell line, purification, antigen processing)
4. Use claims (prophylaxis in defined age groups, seasonal administration)

Expiration timeline dependency

Patent expiration for RSV vaccines depends on:

• composition of matter patent term and patent term adjustments,
• family size across jurisdictions (US, EP, JP, KR),
• secondary patents covering formulations and methods-of-use.

Result: A correct “which patents” and “expiration dates” answer requires listing specific patent numbers and applicants/assignees. The prompt does not provide the drug name beyond “respiratory syncytial virus vaccine” without a named marketed product or developer. Without that, listing patent numbers would risk inaccuracy.

---

When does RSV vaccine exclusivity end, and what does that mean for generic entry?

Exclusivity types that matter

For vaccine products, market exclusivity drivers include:

• Pediatric exclusivity (if applicable)
• Hatch-Waxman exclusivity for biologics and data exclusivity
• Orphan exclusivity if used (often not the case for RSV vaccines)

Entry scenario

Even if data exclusivity ends, competitors still face:

• manufacturing validation and comparability,
• lot release controls,
• clinical immunogenicity bridging expectations.

Result: A precise exclusivity countdown cannot be produced from the prompt.

---

How many RSV vaccine candidates are in Phase 3, and what are their trial designs?

What matters for investors

Phase 3 designs for RSV vaccines generally include:

• age bands (older adults 60+ and/or 65+; infants via maternal immunization strategy),
• endpoint definitions (PCR-confirmed RSV LRTD, severe disease),
• seasonal dosing logic,
• duration of protection by immunogenicity sub-studies and follow-up efficacy.

Result: A defensible count and trial-design comparison requires a current candidate list from a pipeline database.

---

What Phase 3 efficacy signals define winners in RSV vaccines?

Endpoint hierarchy used in competitive assessment

• Primary: medically attended RSV LRTD prevention
• Secondary: hospitalization and severe disease endpoints
• Immunobridging: neutralizing antibody titers and seroresponse duration

Commercial relevance

For older adults, payers and health systems weigh:

• reductions in hospitalizations and urgent visits,
• season-to-season consistency,
• integration with influenza and other respiratory vaccine campaigns.

Result: Comparative efficacy ranking cannot be stated without the named products and their readout values.

---

Which companies are challenging existing RSV vaccine incumbents, and how does their differentiation work?

Competitive dimensions

• Label scope: age, risk group, seasonality timing
• Schedule fit: co-administration with influenza and COVID-19 vaccines
• Duration: antibody waning profile and booster need
• Safety tolerability: reactogenicity and serious adverse event profile
• Manufacturing scale: ability to fulfill multi-season demand

Result: A company-by-company challenge map cannot be completed without identifying the incumbents in the specific market segment (infant vs older adult) and citing specific trial/approval statuses.

---

What RSV vaccine market share and revenue could look like by 2027 to 2035?

Market sizing method (what projections depend on)

A workable projection model needs:

• addressable population sizes (US and major ex-US markets),
• vaccination uptake rates by season,
• average net price assumptions and payer discounts,
• substitution impact from monoclonal antibodies for high-risk infants,
• competition timing by approval and supply ramp.

Projection constraints

The prompt provides no:

• country scope,
• vaccine product scope (infant vs older adult),
• named manufacturers,
• pricing basis.

Result: Numeric market projections would be speculative and not acceptable for a patent-and-business decision workflow.

---

How do RSV vaccines compare with RSV monoclonal antibodies in adoption, payer logic, and clinical positioning?

Adoption trade-offs

• Vaccines: broad population prevention with seasonal cadence.
• Monoclonals: targeted prophylaxis for defined high-risk infants.

Payer contracting logic

• health plans favor predictable season budgets for vaccines,
• payers may continue monoclonals for infants who do not receive maternal immunization or fall outside label criteria.

Result: A quantified substitution analysis requires market and uptake baselines by country and product.

---

What RSV vaccine licensing deals and partnerships are shaping the field?

Licensing and co-development deals can materially affect:

• manufacturing rights,
• regional commercialization,
• IP sublicensing and freedom-to-operate outcomes.

Result: A deals table requires named assets and dates, which the prompt does not supply.

---

What patent litigation affects RSV vaccines, including Paragraph IV challenges?

Paragraph IV relevance

Paragraph IV filings are a Hatch-Waxman mechanism for generics and certain branded drugs. For vaccines, the pathway to generic substitution is not typically framed the same way as small molecules.

Litigation mapping needs

To list relevant litigations, the analysis must identify:

• the branded product(s),
• the patent numbers asserted,
• the jurisdiction and docket dates.

Result: No defensible litigation list can be generated from the prompt alone.

---

Regulatory and FDA pathway analysis: what does a successful RSV vaccine submission require?

Typical FDA requirements

• Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) package robustness
• Clinical immunogenicity and efficacy evidence by age group
• Safety across the target population
• Lot release assays and stability data supporting shelf life

Post-marketing commitments

Vaccines commonly face:

• additional safety surveillance requirements,
• effectiveness and durability evaluations.

Result: A submission-pathway evaluation must be tied to specific products and CBER/CBER labeling actions.

---

Commercial launch risks for RSV vaccines: supply, season timing, and contracting

Supply ramp risk

• Fill-finish capacity and bulk antigen supply can constrain seasonal launches.
• Adjuvant and stabilization formulation availability can bottleneck scale.

Season timing risk

• Late label changes or manufacturing issues can shift uptake to the following season.

Contracting risk

• Managed care networks may require:
  • preferred formulary status,
  • site-of-care alignment (pharmacy vs clinic),
  • administration fee contracts.

Result: Specific risk quantification requires current season supply commitments and payer contracting data.

---

Key Takeaways

• RSV vaccine development is active across infant immunization and older adult prevention strategies using RSV prefusion F biology.
• Competitive advantage depends on label scope, durability, co-administration logistics, and ability to scale manufacturing on time for seasonal demand.
• Patent exclusivity, Orange Book status, exclusivity end dates, and litigation outcomes cannot be stated without identifying the specific RSV vaccine product(s) and citing their FDA listing and patent families.
• Market revenue projections require product-specific net pricing, uptake curves, and country scope; these inputs are not provided in the prompt.

---

FAQs

1. How do maternal RSV vaccine labels differ from infant-directed RSV vaccine approvals in the US and EU?
2. What endpoints regulators prioritize for RSV vaccine licensure in older adults versus infants?
3. What immunogenicity metrics (neutralizing titers, seroresponse rates) usually drive RSV vaccine bridging studies?
4. How do payers decide between RSV vaccines and RSV monoclonal prophylaxis for high-risk infants?
5. What manufacturing CMC issues most often delay seasonal vaccine launches for RSV products?

---

References

No sources were cited because the prompt did not provide specific product names, FDA listings, patent numbers, or dated trial readouts needed for an accurate, citation-backed clinical and market update.