ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2023
Respiratory delivery of passive immunotherapies for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis and therapy.
Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting ACE2 with a camelid antibody inhibits SARS-CoV-2 binding and has protective effects in vivo.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Immunoglobulin G Fc engineering for localized therapy: Eliminating neonatal Fc receptor interactions and ensuring purification using protein A.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Engineered ACE2 decoy in dry powder form for inhalation: A novel therapy for SARS-CoV-2 variants.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2025Article
- Monoclonal Antibodies and Hyperimmune Immunoglobulins in the Next Pandemic.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2025Review
- The Role of Convalescent Plasma in COVID-19: A Conclusive Post-Pandemic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Convalescent plasma has been extensively tested during the COVID-19 pandemic as a transfusion product. Similarly, monoclonal antibodies have been largely administered either intravenously or intramuscularly. Nevertheless, when used against a respiratory pathogen, respiratory delivery is preferable to maximize the amount of antibody that reaches the entry door in order to prevent sustained viral multiplication. In this narrative review, we review the different types of inhalation device and summarize evidence from animal models and early clinical trials supporting the respiratory delivery (for either prophylactic or therapeutic purposes) of convalescent plasma or monoclonal antibodies (either full antibodies, single-chain variable fragments, or camelid-derived monoclonal heavy-chain only antibodies). Preliminary evidences from animal models suggest similar safety and noninferior efficacy, but efficacy evaluation from clinical trials is still limited.
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.