Trial reportScientific reports2025
CT changes in a randomized trial comparing early therapies in an outpatient population at high risk of severe COVID19 disease.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although in vitro studies suggest that neutralization by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against SARS CoV2 Omicron sub lineages is reduced, in vivo virological response data are lacking. MONET (EudraCT: 2021-004188-28) was multi-centric phase 4 open-label parallel randomized clinical trial, conducted in Italy over 2022-2023, to assess the efficacy of sotrovimab (SOT), tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TIX/CIL) and Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), in outpatients at high risk for severe COVID-19. The outcome (secondary in the trial protocol) was SARS-CoV-2 variation in cycle threshold (CT) values over the first 7 days (D1-D7) of the trial. CT variation was compared by trial arms using unadjusted linear regression and after controlling for age. We included 346 individuals: 116 (34%) received SOT, 113 (33%) TIX/CIL, 117 (34%) NMV/r. Main characteristics were balanced across arms. Most of the participants were infected with BA.2 (52%) or BA.4/5 (35.5%). The data carried strong evidence that the mean CT change over D1-D7 was larger in subjects receiving NMV/r vs. the other arms (p < 0.001). We found no evidence that viral variant was an effect measure modifier for the contrasts of interest (p = 0.14). Our analysis provides strong evidence that NMV/r exerts a greater in vivo antiviral effect than anti-Spike mAbs against Omicron sub lineages, confirming previous in vitro data.
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.