Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2022
The comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies: A learning health system randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04790786 (The UPMC OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monocolonal antIbodieS Through Evaluation for COVID-19 Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
The UPMC OPtimizing Treatment and Impact of Monocolonal antIbodieS Through Evaluation for COVID-19 Trial
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Lessons for medical countermeasure development from unforeseen outbreaks.Emerging microbes & infections · 2025Review
- SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced Seroconversion and Immune Correlates in Patients with Hematological Malignancies. A Real World Study.Oncology research · 2025Article
- Learning health systems on the front lines to strengthen care against future pandemics and climate change: a rapid review.BMC health services research · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab for preventing and treating COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Progress with the Learning Health System 2.0: a rapid review of Learning Health Systems' responses to pandemics and climate change.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Designing and Implementing "Living and Breathing" Clinical Trials: An Overview and Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic.Critical care clinics · 2023Review
- Evolving Real-World Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of COVID-19 : A Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2023Article
- Benefits of near-universal vaccination and treatment access to manage COVID-19 burden in the United States.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Monoclonal Antibodies for Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection During Pregnancy : A Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonoclonal antibodies (mAb) that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 decrease hospitalization and death compared to placebo in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19; however, comparative effectiveness is unknown. We report the comparative effectiveness of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab.
methodsA learning health system platform trial in a U.S. health system enrolled patients meeting mAb Emergency Use Authorization criteria. An electronic health record-embedded application linked local mAb inventory to patient encounters and provided random mAb allocation. Primary outcome was hospital-free days to day 28. Primary analysis was a Bayesian model adjusting for treatment location, age, sex, and time. Inferiority was defined as 99% posterior probability of an odds ratio < 1. Equivalence was defined as 95% posterior probability the odds ratio is within a given bound.
findingsBetween March 10 and June 25, 2021, 1935 patients received treatment. Median hospital-free days were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. Mortality was 0.8% (1/128), 0.8% (7/885), and 0.7% (6/922) for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab-etesevimab, and casirivimab-imdevimab, respectively. Relative to casirivimab-imdevimab (n = 922), median adjusted odds ratios were 0.58 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.30-1.16) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.24) for bamlanivimab (n = 128) and bamlanivimab-etesevimab (n = 885), respectively. These odds ratios yielded 91% and 94% probabilities of inferiority of bamlanivimab versus bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab, and an 86% probability of equivalence between bamlanivimab-etesevimab and casirivimab-imdevimab.
interpretationAmong patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, bamlanivimab-etesevimab or casirivimab-imdevimab treatment resulted in 86% probability of equivalence. No treatment met prespecified criteria for statistical equivalence. Median hospital-free days to day 28 were 28 (IQR 28, 28) for each mAb. FUNDING AND REGISTRATION: This work received no external funding. The U.S. government provided the reported mAb. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04790786.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.