Trial reportBMJ open respiratory research2025
Regional comparison of efficacy and safety for vilobelimab in critically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.
Trial report in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVilobelimab, a first in class C5a-specific monoclonal antibody, improved 28-day and 60-day mortality in intubated COVID-19 patients in PANAMO, a phase 3 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study. All-cause mortality was pre-specified to be analysed pooling by region (western Europe, South America, South Africa/Russia).
methodsCritically ill, invasively mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio within 48 hours of intubation to receive vilobelimab treatment (six, 800 mg intravenous infusions) or placebo on top of standard of care. We analysed the efficacy and safety of vilobelimab based on prespecified geographic regions.
results368 patients were randomised and analysed: 177 in the vilobelimab group and 191 in the placebo group. In western Europe (n=209), 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vilobelimab group (21%) compared with placebo (37%) (HR 0.51 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.87), p=0.014). In South America (n=126), mortality was similar between groups (40% vs 37%; HR 0.94 (95% CI: 0.53, 1.67), p=0.83). In South Africa/Russia (n=33), mortality was 69% in the vilobelimab group and 87% in the placebo group (HR 0.62 (95% CI: 0.28, 1.38), p=0.25). Within the Brazilian subpopulation (n=74), a significant age imbalance between the vilobelimab and placebo group was detected (median 53.5 years in the vilobelimab group vs 44.5 years in the placebo group). Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events between regions was similar.
conclusionThe most apparent 28-day all-cause mortality benefit for vilobelimab was in western Europe. Age imbalance between treatment groups in Brazil may have resulted in a lower efficacy signal for vilobelimab in South America compared with other regions. Overall, vilobelimab demonstrated a favourable safety profile and reduced mortality in critically ill, intubated COVID-19 patients, with regional variations influencing outcomes.
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.