Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40715971›Full record

ReviewInfectious diseases and therapy2025

Exploring Human Use of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Critical Bacteria: A Scoping Review of Clinical Trials.

Marco Piscaglia, Giovanni Scaglione, Camilla Genovese, Fabio Borgonovo, Fabio Brivio, Flavia Rampichini, Renata Grifantini, Alessandra Bandera, Andrea Gori, Marta Colaneri and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

11 authors.

Marco PiscagliaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni ScaglioneDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Camilla GenoveseDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Fabio BorgonovoDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Fabio BrivioDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Flavia RampichiniLibrary of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Renata GrifantiniINGM, Istituto Nazionale di Genetica Molecolare 'Romeo ed Enrica Invernizzi', Milan, Italy.
Alessandra BanderaInfectious Diseases Unit, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Andrea GoriDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Marta ColaneriDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. marta.colaneri@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5939-9576
Emanuele PalombaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Ospedale Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Funding

European Commission INF-ACT).European Commission Next Generation EU-MUR PNRR Extended Partnership Initiative on Emerging Infectious Diseases (Project no. PE00000007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe global spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), particularly the World Health Organization (WHO) priority pathogens, poses a major challenge to infection treatment, necessitating alternative therapeutic strategies. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have emerged as a potential approach. This review evaluates the clinical efficacy, safety, and limitations of mAbs targeting critical bacterial pathogens, analyzing factors influencing therapeutic outcomes, and proposing strategies to optimize their clinical application.

methodsA comprehensive analysis of clinical trials investigating antibacterial mAbs was conducted. The review assessed key factors influencing therapeutic outcomes, including trial design, patient heterogeneity, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Comparative analysis was performed to examine differences in efficacy, safety, and limitations across studies. A structured risk of bias assessment was performed using Cochrane Methods' tools.

resultsOwing to the low number of studies against MDROs, all trials about mAbs targeting Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) were included, disregarding resistance profiles. Generally, clinical trials evaluating antibacterial mAbs have shown preliminary evidence. For PA, panobacumab exhibited a favorable safety profile but lacked clear clinical benefits, showing a good survival rate but in a small uncontrolled trial. Rivabazumab reduced bacterial colonization, but did not significantly lower pneumonia incidence. Gremubamab was well tolerated but failed to meet efficacy endpoints. For SA, tosatoxumab and suvratoxumab failed to show statistical significance but may have potential benefits for pneumonia, although phase III trials are needed.

conclusionsInconsistent efficacy may stem from complex host-pathogen interactions, biofilm formation, and variations in patient immune status. Future trials should investigate early mAb administration, stratified patient selection, and standardized antibiotic coadministration, poorly addressed thus far. Optimized dosing and mAb combination regimens are promising yet unexplored paths, while high production costs and regulatory issues remain a significant barrier.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial resistanceMonoclonal antibodiesMultidrug-resistantNovel treatments

Identifiers

PMID40715971
PMCPMC12339841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.