Loading...
21 bamlanivimab/etesevimab COVID-19 controlled studies, 6 RCTs
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2+ Gottlieb (RCT) 71% 0.29 [0.09-0.96] hosp./ER 4/101 7/52 Improvement, RR [CI] Treatment Control Gottlieb (RCT) 80% 0.20 [0.03-1.56] hosp./ER 1/37 7/52 Gottlieb (RCT) 75% 0.25 [0.03-1.92] hosp./ER 1/30 7/52 Gottlieb (RCT) 56% 0.44 [0.10-1.98] hosp./ER 2/34 7/52 Gottlieb (RCT) 92% 0.08 [0.01-0.92] hosp./ER 0/31 7/52 Alam 75% 0.25 [0.10-0.85] death 160 (n) 86 (n) Alam 65% 0.35 [0.15-1.08] hosp. 160 (n) 86 (n) Karr 40% 0.60 [0.08-4.51] hosp. 4/40 1/6 Karr 62% 0.38 [0.09-1.52] hosp./ER 5/40 2/6 Corwin 80% 0.20 [0.03-1.42] death 1/780 35/5,337 Corwin 39% 0.61 [0.45-0.79] hosp. 57/780 490/5,337 Webb 80% 0.20 [0.03-1.46] death 1/479 57/5,536 Webb 53% 0.47 [0.31-0.72] hosp. 22/479 538/5,536 Webb 27% 0.73 [0.65-0.82] hosp./ER 65/479 1,018/5,536 Dougan (DB RCT) 95% 0.05 [0.00-0.90] death 0/518 9/517 Dougan (DB RCT) 70% 0.30 [0.16-0.59] death/hosp. 11/518 36/517 Dougan (DB RCT) 11% 0.89 [0.82-0.97] recov. time 518 (n) 517 (n) Dougan (DB RCT) 67% 0.33 [0.25-0.45] viral+ 50/508 147/499 Cooper -7% 1.07 [0.55-2.07] death 12/2,900 33/8,534 Cooper 45% 0.55 [0.07-3.99] death 1/473 33/8,534 Cooper -17% 1.17 [0.59-2.32] death 11/2,427 33/8,534 Cooper 17% 0.83 [0.53-1.30] ICU 24/2,900 85/8,534 Cooper 58% 0.42 [0.10-1.72] ICU 2/473 85/8,534 Cooper 9% 0.91 [0.57-1.45] ICU 22/2,427 85/8,534 Cooper 24% 0.76 [0.65-0.89] hosp. 181/2,900 703/8,534 Cooper 5% 0.95 [0.69-1.30] hosp. 37/473 703/8,534 Cooper 28% 0.72 [0.61-0.86] hosp. 144/2,427 703/8,534 Rubin 44% 0.56 [0.07-4.33] death 1/191 10/1,066 Rubin 65% 0.35 [0.12-0.94] hosp. 16/191 121/1,065 Leavitt 30% 0.70 [0.26-1.92] hosp. 6/136 9/143 Leavitt 42% 0.58 [0.36-0.96] misc. 20/136 36/143 Delasobera -119% 2.19 [0.23-20.9] death 3/253 1/185 Delasobera 52% 0.48 [0.27-0.85] hosp. 17/253 26/185 Delasobera 20% 0.80 [0.46-1.40] progression 23/253 21/185 Dale 89% 0.11 [0.02-0.55] death 5/56 9/19 Dale 86% 0.14 [0.04-0.52] progression 6/56 10/19 Dale 54% 0.46 [0.08-1.97] progression 6/56 3/19 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) -51% 1.51 [0.26-8.90] hosp. 3/127 2/128 CT1 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 9% 0.91 [0.88-0.93] viral load 125 (n) 128 (n) CT1 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 24% 0.76 [0.70-0.82] viral load 125 (n) 128 (n) CT1 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 12% 0.88 [0.84-0.91] viral load 125 (n) 128 (n) CT1 BLAZE-4 Dougan (RCT) 35% 0.65 [0.36-1.15] viral+ 16/127 25/128 CT1 Wilden 51% 0.49 [0.23-1.04] hosp. n/a n/a Fivelstad -144% 2.44 [0.10-59.6] death 1/335 0/148 Fivelstad 63% 0.37 [0.21-0.64] hosp. 21/335 25/148 Kip 15% 0.85 [0.51-1.41] death/hosp. 20/349 47/695 Kip 31% 0.69 [0.41-1.18] death/hosp. 17/221 49/442 ACTIV-3 ACTIV-3/TIC.. (RCT) -100% 2.00 [0.69-5.83] death 9/163 5/151 Bariola 67% 0.33 [0.10-1.01] death 4/234 12/234 Bariola 64% 0.36 [0.20-0.61] death/hosp. 16/234 45/234 Bariola 61% 0.39 [0.22-0.70] hosp. 15/234 39/234 Ganesh 74% 0.26 [0.05-1.20] death 2/1,789 8/1,832 Ganesh 49% 0.51 [0.24-1.09] ICU 10/1,789 20/1,832 Ganesh 37% 0.63 [0.43-0.91] hosp. 44/1,789 72/1,832 Priest (PSM) 0% 1.00 [0.33-3.07] death 6/379 6/379 Priest (PSM) -4% 1.04 [0.78-1.38] hosp. 79/379 76/379 Priest (PSM) -5% 1.05 [0.73-1.52] hosp./ER 379 (n) 379 (n) ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) 25% 0.75 [0.26-2.10] hosp. 6/159 8/158 ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) 52% 0.48 [0.09-2.49] hosp. 2/48 4/46 ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) -1% 1.01 [0.26-3.93] hosp. 4/111 4/112 ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) -14% 1.14 [0.00-455] recov. time 48 (n) 46 (n) ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) -17% 1.17 [0.98-1.40] recov. time 111 (n) 112 (n) ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) -1% 1.01 [0.86-1.17] progression 42/48 40/46 ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) 2% 0.98 [0.91-1.05] progression 102/111 105/112 ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) 26% 0.74 [0.62-0.90] viral load 48 (n) 46 (n) ACTIV-2/A5401 Chew (RCT) 35% 0.65 [0.40-1.04] viral load 111 (n) 112 (n) Lilly (RCT) 57% 0.43 [0.28-0.67] symp. case 483 (n) 482 (n) Lilly (RCT) 80% 0.20 [0.08-0.47] symp. case 150 (n) 149 (n) Bamlanivimab/etesevimab COVID-19 outcomes c19 earlyDecember 2024 1 CT: study uses combined treatment Favors bamlanivimab/e.. Favors control
Figure 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.
Please send us corrections, updates, or comments.
c19early involves the extraction of 100,000+ 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.
FLCCC and
WCH
provide treatment protocols.
Submit
