Supplementary Data — Bebtelovimab for COVID-19: real-time meta analysis of 6 studies

@CovidAnalysis, December 2025, Version 16V16
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2+ Lilly (RCT) -151% 2.51 [0.10-61.1] death 1/252 0/128 Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Lilly (RCT) -201% 3.01 [0.12-73.2] death 1/127 0/128 Lilly (RCT) -27% 1.27 [0.25-6.46] hosp. 5/252 2/128 Lilly (RCT) -51% 1.51 [0.26-8.90] hosp. 3/127 2/128 Lilly (RCT) -2% 1.02 [0.15-7.16] hosp. 2/125 2/128 Lilly (RCT) 36% 0.64 [0.40-1.03] viral+ 33/252 26/128 Lilly (RCT) 38% 0.62 [0.35-1.10] viral+ 16/127 26/128 Lilly (RCT) 33% 0.67 [0.38-1.17] viral+ 17/125 26/128 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) -27% 1.27 [0.25-6.46] hosp. 5/252 2/128 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) -2% 1.02 [0.15-7.16] hosp. 2/125 2/128 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 4% 0.96 [0.95-0.97] viral load 125 (n) 128 (n) BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 30% 0.70 [0.63-0.78] viral load 125 (n) 128 (n) BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 15% 0.85 [0.81-0.88] viral load 125 (n) 128 (n) BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 39% 0.61 [0.34-1.11] viral+ 15/125 25/128 Dryden-Peterson 86% 0.14 [0.01-2.76] death 0/377 3/377 Dryden-Peterson 43% 0.57 [0.28-1.19] death/hosp. 10/377 17/377 Dryden-Peterson 29% 0.71 [0.32-1.59] hosp. 10/377 14/377 Kip 20% 0.80 [0.32-2.02] death/hosp. 6/157 15/314 Molina (PSM) 57% 0.43 [0.11-1.30] death 3/3,739 11/5,423 Molina 59% 0.41 [0.17-1.03] ICU 6/3,739 21/5,423 Molina (PSM) 56% 0.44 [0.30-0.64] hosp. 38/3,739 107/5,423 Molina (PSM) 46% 0.54 [0.38-0.74] hosp. 48/3,739 116/5,423 Molina (PSM) -33% 1.33 [1.12-1.57] progression 260/3,739 275/5,423 Sridhara (PSM) 86% 0.14 [0.01-2.76] death 0/1,091 3/1,091 Sridhara (PSM) 25% 0.75 [0.43-1.31] death/hosp. 24/1,091 28/1,091 Sridhara (PSM) 11% 0.89 [0.52-1.53] hosp. 24/1,091 27/1,091 Bebtelovimab COVID-19 outcomes c19early.org December 2025 Favors bebtelovimab Favors control
Fig. S1. All outcomes.
Loading..
Fig. S2. Comparison of results for RCTs versus observational studies. For COVID-19 treatments, there is no significant difference between the results of RCTs and observational studies. Observational studies do not systematically over or underestimate efficacy. For high-cost treatments, there is a non-significant trend towards RCTs showing greater efficacy.