Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37507368›Full record

ArticleNature communications2023

Monoclonal antibody levels and protection from COVID-19.

Eva Stadler, Martin T Burgess, Timothy E Schlub, Shanchita R Khan, Khai Li Chai, Zoe K McQuilten, Erica M Wood, Mark N Polizzotto, Stephen J Kent, Deborah Cromer and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predicting vaccine effectiveness for mpox.Nature communications · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Tick-Borne Encephalitis in the 21Le infezioni in medicina · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Profiling of sesquiterpenoid fractions fromBiomolecules & biomedicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. COVID-19 therapeutics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Eva StadlerKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5129-8180
Martin T BurgessSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Timothy E SchlubSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7746-9649
Shanchita R KhanKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0772-6122
Khai Li ChaiTransfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Zoe K McQuiltenTransfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Erica M WoodTransfusion Research Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7527-2340
Mark N PolizzottoClinical Hub for Interventional Research, College of Health and Medicine, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Stephen J KentDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne at the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8539-4891
Deborah CromerKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Miles P DavenportKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. m.davenport@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4751-1831
David S KhouryKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. dkhoury@kirby.unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2663-1551
UNSW Sydney · AUMonash Health · AUAustralian National University · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple monoclonal antibodies have been shown to be effective for both prophylaxis and therapy for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Here we aggregate data from randomized controlled trials assessing the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. We use data on the in vivo concentration of mAb and the associated protection from COVID-19 over time to model the dose-response relationship of mAb for prophylaxis. We estimate that 50% protection from COVID-19 is achieved with a mAb concentration of 96-fold of the in vitro IC50 (95% CI: 32-285). This relationship provides a tool for predicting the prophylactic efficacy of new mAb and against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Finally, we compare the relationship between neutralization titer and protection from COVID-19 after either mAb treatment or vaccination. We find no significant difference between the 50% protective titer for mAb and vaccination, although sample sizes limited the power to detect a difference.

Indexed as

COVID-19Antibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralHumansSample SizeSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID37507368
PMCPMC10382502
OpenAlexW4385345323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.