Summary of COVID-19 sipavibart studies
Hide extended summaries
3,280 patient sipavibart prophylaxis RCT: 236% higher mortality (p=0.09), 1% lower hospitalization (p=1), and 32% fewer cases (p=0.0005).
RCT 3,349 immunocompromised patients showing lower symptomatic COVID-19 with sipavibart versus a combined comparator group. There was no significant difference for severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. All-cause mortality and adverse events versus placebo are reported, but for other outcomes authors only report comparison with a combined group where most patients received tixagevimab/cilgavimab. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may have lost efficacy with variants at the time but retain side effects, potentially making the treatment look better than it would versus placebo. Table 3 shows 4x greater intervention-related serious adverse events for tixagevimab/cilgavimab compared with sipavibart. Confounding by time with the mid-trial change to placebo will also affect results. Ideally, authors will report results for concurrent treatment vs. placebo.
Jul 2025, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309924008041, https://c19p.org/haidar
116 patient sipavibart prophylaxis RCT: 267% higher mortality (p=1) and 33% fewer symptomatic cases (p=0.64).
RCT 116 patients in Russia, showing improved nAb titers with sipavibart prophylaxis, but no significant difference for mortality or symptomatic cases.
May 2024, AstraZeneca, NCT06057064, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06057064, https://c19p.org/azspv
3,280 patient sipavibart prophylaxis RCT: 236% higher mortality (p=0.09), 1% lower hospitalization (p=1), and 32% fewer cases (p=0.0005).
RCT 3,349 immunocompromised patients showing lower symptomatic COVID-19 with sipavibart versus a combined comparator group. There was no significant difference for severe COVID-19 or hospitalization. All-cause mortality and adverse events versus placebo are reported, but for other outcomes authors only report comparison with a combined group where most patients received tixagevimab/cilgavimab. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab may have lost efficacy with variants at the time but retain side effects, potentially making the treatment look better than it would versus placebo. Table 3 shows 4x greater intervention-related serious adverse events for tixagevimab/cilgavimab compared with sipavibart. Confounding by time with the mid-trial change to placebo will also affect results. Ideally, authors will report results for concurrent treatment vs. placebo.
Jul 2025, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309924008041, https://c19p.org/haidar
116 patient sipavibart prophylaxis RCT: 267% higher mortality (p=1) and 33% fewer symptomatic cases (p=0.64).
RCT 116 patients in Russia, showing improved nAb titers with sipavibart prophylaxis, but no significant difference for mortality or symptomatic cases.
May 2024, AstraZeneca, NCT06057064, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06057064, https://c19p.org/azspv
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.
Thanks for your feedback! Please search before submitting papers and note
that studies are listed under the date they were first available, which may be
the date of an earlier preprint.