ReviewClinical and translational science2025
Clinical Pharmacology Approaches to Predict Efficacy of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organoid-based evaluation of SA55 and Pemivibart against evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants.Emerging microbes & infections · 2026Article
- Developing affordable monoclonal antibodies for LMICs through high performance manufacturing processes and LMIC based commercial manufacturing.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Clinical Pharmacology Approaches to Predict Efficacy of Monoclonal Antibodies Against Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Clinical and translational science · 2025Review
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
The onset of the global COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need for therapeutic monoclonal antibody (mAb) development, while the rapid mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and emergence of new variants presented a moving target for validation of efficacy. Since it is virtually impossible to conduct randomized controlled trials in the context of a continually evolving variant landscape, other sources of data can inform ongoing effectiveness and appropriate dosing of existing treatments against new variants. This may include data from in vitro neutralization testing, real-world studies, and clinical pharmacology studies. There are various clinical pharmacology approaches available to aid in dose selection of COVID-19 mAbs, and the approach used for initial dose selection may differ from that used to justify dose modifications in light of new variants. At present, there is no universally accepted approach that has been shown to work in all circumstances, and most of the available methods lack validation against clinical data. Here, we provide an overview of the different pharmacological approaches available for mAb dose selection or dose adjustments, outlining advantages and limitations of each as well as assumptions, data requirements, and key learnings for each method based on experiences with COVID-19 mAb development over the last 4 years. Future mAb development programs for COVID-19 or other viral infections with pandemic potential should take into consideration lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and devise clinical development programs that generate data to help address new emerging variants of concern in a rapidly evolving virus landscape.
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.