Analgesics
Antiandrogens
Antihistamines
Budesonide
Colchicine
Conv. Plasma
Curcumin
Fluvoxamine
Hydroxychlor..
Ivermectin
Lifestyle
Melatonin
Metformin
Minerals
Monoclonals
Mpro inhibitors
Naso/orophar..
Nigella Sativa
Nitazoxanide
PPIs
Quercetin
RdRp inhibitors
TMPRSS2 inh.
Thermotherapy
Vitamins
More

Other
Feedback
Home
 
next
study
previous
study
c19early.org COVID-19 treatment researchBamlanivimab/etesevimabBamlaniv../e.. (more..)
Budesonide Meta
Colchicine Meta Nigella Sativa Meta
Conv. Plasma Meta Nitazoxanide Meta
Curcumin Meta PPIs Meta
Fluvoxamine Meta Quercetin Meta
Hydroxychlor.. Meta
Ivermectin Meta
Thermotherapy Meta
Melatonin Meta
Metformin Meta

 

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody program update

Lilly, Press Release, NCT04427501, Oct 2020
https://c19early.org/lilly.html
Hospitalization or ER.. 84% improvement lower risk ← → higher risk Bamlanivimab/e..  Lilly et al.  EARLY TREATMENT RCT Is early treatment with bamlanivimab/etesevimab beneficial? RCT 268 patients in the USA Fewer hosp./ER visits with bamlanivimab/etesevimab (p=0.049) c19early.org Lilly, Press Release, October 2020 0 0.5 1 1.5 2+ RR
25th treatment shown to reduce risk in May 2021, now with p = 0.00049 from 22 studies, recognized in 11 countries. Efficacy is variant dependent.
No treatment is 100% effective. Protocols combine treatments.
6,200+ studies for 190+ treatments. c19early.org
Interim results from the BLAZE-1 outpatient RCT showing improvements in viral load, symptoms and hospitalization.
Combination therapy significantly reduced viral load at day 11 (p=0.011). A greater effect is seen at day 7 (p<0.001). The proportion of patients with persistent high viral load at day 7 for combination therapy was lower (3.0 percent) versus placebo (20.8 percent), corresponding to a nominal p value of p<0.0001 without multiplicity adjustment. No emergent putative resistance variants have been observed thus far in patients treated with combination therapy.
The rate of COVID-related hospitalization and ER visits was lower for patients treated with combination therapy (0.9 percent) versus placebo (5.8 percent), a relative risk reduction of 84.5 percent (p=0.049). This was also similar to observations for LY-CoV555 monotherapy.
Combination therapy has been generally well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events. In LY-CoV555 monotherapy studies there have been isolated drug-related infusion reactions or hypersensitivity that were generally mild (two reported as serious infusion reactions, all patients recovered).
Efficacy is highly variant dependent. In Vitro research suggests a lack of efficacy for omicron1-5.
Standard of Care (SOC) for COVID-19 in the study country, the USA, is very poor with very low average efficacy for approved treatments6. Only expensive, high-profit treatments were approved for early treatment. Low-cost treatments were excluded, reducing the probability of early treatment due to access and cost barriers, and eliminating complementary and synergistic benefits seen with many low-cost treatments.
risk of hospitalization or ER visit, 84.5% lower, RR 0.15, p = 0.049, treatment 112, control 156.
Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules prioritizing more serious outcomes. Submit updates
Lilly et al., 7 Oct 2020, Randomized Controlled Trial, USA, preprint, 1 author, trial NCT04427501 (history).
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19 treatment protocols c19early.org November 2025 USA Russia Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan Canada China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Germany Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Bosnia-Herzegovina Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Singapore Iceland New Zealand Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago Hong Kong North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia CAR USA favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy of treatments was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment, andforgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
$0 $500 $1,000+ Efficacy vs. cost for COVID-19treatment protocols worldwide c19early.org November 2025 USA Russia Sudan Angola Colombia Kenya Mozambique Vietnam Peru Philippines Spain Brazil Italy France Japan Canada China Uzbekistan Nepal Ethiopia Iran Ghana Mexico South Korea Germany Bangladesh Saudi Arabia Algeria Morocco Yemen Poland India DR Congo Madagascar Thailand Uganda Venezuela Nigeria Egypt Bolivia Taiwan Zambia Fiji Ukraine Côte d'Ivoire Eritrea Bulgaria Greece Slovakia Singapore New Zealand Malawi Czechia Mongolia Israel Trinidad and Tobago North Macedonia Belarus Qatar Panama Serbia Syria USA favored high-profit treatments.The average efficacy was very low.High-cost protocols reduce early treatment,and forgo complementary/synergistic benefits. More effective More expensive 75% 50% 25% ≤0%
Loading..
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. c19early involves the extraction of 200,000+ datapoints from thousands of papers. Community updates help ensure high accuracy. Treatments and other interventions are complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used based on risk/benefit analysis. No treatment or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can provide personalized advice and details of risks and benefits based on your medical history and situation. IMA and WCH provide treatment protocols.
  or use drag and drop   
Submit