ArticlePulmonary therapy2025
Real-World Effectiveness of Bebtelovimab Versus Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Outpatients with COVID-19.
Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis real-world study assessed the effectiveness of bebtelovimab (BEB) versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NR) among outpatients with COVID-19 during the Omicron variant era.
methodsWe conducted a cohort study evaluating patients treated with BEB or NR from February to August 2022 (study period). Follow-up began the day after treatment and continued for 30 days. Cohorts were constructed using de-identified electronic health record data from TriNetX Dataworks USA. The study assessed 30-day all-cause hospitalization or death (composite) using the risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).
resultsUnmatched cohorts included 12,920 BEB- and 70,741 NR-treated patients. After exact matching on key baseline covariates (age > 65 years, immunocompromised, recent emergency department [ED] visit, and COVID-19 vaccination) and high-dimensional propensity score matching (1:1) on a broader set of covariates, 5827 patients were included in each cohort. BEB-treated patients were older and had more comorbidities compared to NR-treated patients prior to matching. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. The cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (hospitalization or death) was 2.0% and 1.8% for BEB and NR, respectively (RD 0.2%; 95% CI - 0.3%, 0.7%). The upper bound of the RD 95% CI (0.7%) excluded the noninferiority margin (1.795%), demonstrating that BEB was not inferior to NR. The RDs of the secondary outcomes were (BEB vs NR): hospitalization (RD 0.1%; 95% CI - 0.4%, 0.6%); ED visit (RD 0.5%; 95% CI - 0.3%, 1.3%); and death (RD 0.09%; 95% CI - 0.003%, 0.2%). Results from subgroup, sensitivity, and linked analyses (EHR + claims + mortality data) were consistent with the main results.
conclusionTreatment with BEB was not inferior to NR with respect to 30-day all-cause hospitalization or death. The risk of secondary outcomes was not different for patients treated with BEB compared to NR.
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.