ArticlePloS one2022
The clinical effectiveness of REGEN-COV in SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron versus Delta variants.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab in preventing COVID-19 in the Omicron BA.5 subvariant epidemic: a retrospective study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2025Article
- Broad-Spectrum Engineered Multivalent Nanobodies Against SARS-CoV-1/2.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn vitro studies suggesting that REGEN-COV (casirivimab plus imdevimab monoclonal antibodies) had poor efficacy against Omicron-variant SARS-CoV-2 infection led to amendment of REGEN-COV's Emergency Use Authorization to recommend use only in regions without high Omicron prevalence. REGEN-COV's relative clinical effectiveness for Omicron is unknown. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction at the University of Miami Health System from July 19 -November 21, 2021 (Delta period) and December 6, 2021 -January 7, 2022 (Omicron period). Subjects were stratified be REGEN-COV receipt within 72h of test positivity and by time period of infection. We constructed multivariable logistic regression models to assess the differential association of REGEN-COV receipt with hospitalization within 30 days (primary outcome) and ED presentation; all models included three exposure terms (REGEN-COV receipt, Omicron vs Delta period, interaction of REGEN-COV with time period) and potential confounders (vaccination status, vaccine boosting, cancer diagnosis). Our cohort consisted of 2,083 adults in the Delta period (213 [10.2%] received REGEN-COV) and 4,201 in the Omicron period (156 [3.7%] received REGEN-COV). Hospitalization was less common during the Omicron period than during Delta (0.9% vs 1.7%, p = 0.78) and more common for patients receiving REGEN-COV than not (5.7% vs 0.9%, p<0.001). After adjustment, we found no differential association of REGEN-COV use during Omicron vs Delta with hospitalization within 30d (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for the interaction term: 2.31 [0.76-6.92], p = 0.13). Similarly, we found no differential association for hospitalization within 15d (2.45 [0.63-9.59], p = 0.20) or emergency department presentation within 30d (1.43 [0.57-3.51], p = 0.40) or within 15d (1.79 [0.65-4.82], p = 0.30).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study's power to detect a difference, we identified no differential effectiveness of REGEN-COV in the context of Omicron vs Delta SARS-CoV-2 infection.
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.