Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39031183›Full record

SynthesisNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2024

Sotrovimab in the treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Ana Flávia da Silva Amorim, Joselin Valeska Martinez Sobalvarro, Larissa Helena Torres, Tiago Marques Dos Reis

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Ana Flávia da Silva AmorimDepartment of Food and Drugs, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5453-4436
Joselin Valeska Martinez SobalvarroHealth Sciences Sector, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7074-4609
Larissa Helena TorresDepartment of Food and Drugs, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Brazil. larissa.torres@unifal-mg.edu.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7065-7484
Tiago Marques Dos ReisDepartment of Clinical and Toxicological Analysis, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Brazil. tiago.reis@unifal-mg.edu.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0789-0187

Funding

Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement - Brazil (CAPES). Finance Code 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was carried out to verify the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of sotrovimab in patients with COVID-19. This is a systematic review of randomized clinical trials retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Lilacs, and Cochrane Library databases. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk and Bias Checklist (RoB 2). For the meta-analysis, RStudio Version 2024.04.2 software was used. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022355786). A total of 1893 studies were identified and four were included in the study. The total population consisted of 5470 patients with COVID-19, 1921 (35%) in the sotrovimab group and 3549 (65%) in the control group (placebo or BRII-196 + BRII-198 or casirivimab + imdevimab or bamlanivimab + etesevimab, administered in a similar way to sotrovimab, in a single dose with a 60-min intravenous infusion). For the effectiveness outcome, three studies presented low risk and one high risk of bias, while for safety all presented high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the sotrovimab and control groups in terms of hospitalization rates (95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.10-0.51; p = 0 > 0.05), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (95% CI - 2.78-0.65; p = 0.35) and mortality (95% CI - 0.92-0.59; p = 0.39). However, sensitivity analysis showed that sotrovimab may be effective in reducing hospitalization rates compared to the control (IV =  - 1.57; 95% CI - 2.41-0.73; p = 0.99). The use of sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 had no significant impact on mortality and need for mechanical ventilation and did not appear to be safer compared to controls. However, there was evidence of effectiveness in reducing the rate of hospitalization, although the certainty of the evidence is moderate and the risk of bias is high.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCOVID-19 Drug TreatmentRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntibodies, NeutralizingAntiviral AgentsCOVID-19HumansSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntibodies, NeutralizingAntiviral AgentssotrovimabCOVID-19EffectivenessSafetySotrovimab

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.