Table 2 summarizes the results for all stages combined, with different exclusions, and for specific outcomes. Table 3 shows results by treatment stage. Figure 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 show forest plots for random effects meta-analysis of all studies with pooled effects, mortality results, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, progression, recovery, and peer reviewed studies.

To avoid bias in the selection of studies, we analyze all non-retracted studies. Here we show the results after excluding studies with major issues likely to alter results, non-standard studies, and studies where very minimal detail is currently available. Our bias evaluation is based on analysis of each study and identifying when there is a significant chance that limitations will substantially change the outcome of the study. We believe this can be more valuable than checklist-based approaches such as Cochrane GRADE, which may underemphasize serious issues not captured in the checklists, overemphasize issues unlikely to alter outcomes in specific cases (for example, lack of blinding for an objective mortality outcome, or certain specifics of randomization with a very large effect size), or be easily influenced by potential bias. However, they can also be very high quality.

The studies excluded are as below. Figure 13 shows a forest plot for random effects meta-analysis of all studies after exclusions.

[Brown], unadjusted results with no group details; significant unadjusted confounding possible.

[Zheng], study compares against another treatment showing significant efficacy.

Heterogeneity in COVID-19 studies arises from many factors including:

The time between infection or the onset of symptoms and treatment may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example an antiviral may be very effective when used early but may not be effective in late stage disease, and may even be harmful. Oseltamivir, for example, is generally only considered effective for influenza when used within 0-36 or 0-48 hours [McLean, Treanor]. Baloxavir studies for influenza also show that treatment delay is critical — [Ikematsu] report an 86% reduction in cases for post-exposure prophylaxis, [Hayden] show a 33 hour reduction in the time to alleviation of symptoms for treatment within 24 hours and a reduction of 13 hours for treatment within 24-48 hours, and [Kumar] report only 2.5 hours improvement for inpatient treatment.

Figure 14 shows a mixed-effects meta-regression for efficacy as a function of treatment delay in COVID-19 studies from 51 treatments, showing that efficacy declines rapidly with treatment delay. Early treatment is critical for COVID-19.

Details of the patient population including age and comorbidities may critically affect how well a treatment works. For example, many COVID-19 studies with relatively young low-comorbidity patients show all patients recovering quickly with or without treatment. In such cases, there is little room for an effective treatment to improve results (as in [López-Medina]).

Efficacy may differ significantly depending on the effect measured, for example a treatment may be very effective at reducing mortality, but less effective at minimizing cases or hospitalization. Or a treatment may have no effect on viral clearance while still being effective at reducing mortality.

There are many different variants of SARS-CoV-2 and efficacy may depend critically on the distribution of variants encountered by the patients in a study. For example, the Gamma variant shows significantly different characteristics [Faria, Karita, Nonaka, Zavascki]. Different mechanisms of action may be more or less effective depending on variants, for example the viral entry process for the omicron variant has moved towards TMPRSS2-independent fusion, suggesting that TMPRSS2 inhibitors may be less effective [Peacock, Willett].

Effectiveness may depend strongly on the dosage and treatment regimen.

The use of other treatments may significantly affect outcomes, including anything from supplements, other medications, or other kinds of treatment such as prone positioning.

The quality of medications may vary significantly between manufacturers and production batches, which may significantly affect efficacy and safety. [Williams] analyze ivermectin from 11 different sources, showing highly variable antiparasitic efficacy across different manufacturers. [Xu] analyze a treatment from two different manufacturers, showing 9 different impurities, with significantly different concentrations for each manufacturer.

We present both pooled analyses and specific outcome analyses. Notably, pooled analysis often results in earlier detection of efficacy as shown in Figure 15. For many COVID-19 treatments, a reduction in mortality logically follows from a reduction in hospitalization, which follows from a reduction in symptomatic cases, etc. An antiviral tested with a low-risk population may report zero mortality in both arms, however a reduction in severity and improved viral clearance may translate into lower mortality among a high-risk population, and including these results in pooled analysis allows faster detection of efficacy. Trials with high-risk patients may also be restricted due to ethical concerns for treatments that are known or expected to be effective.

Pooled analysis enables using more of the available information. While there is much more information available, for example dose-response relationships, the advantage of the method used here is simplicity and transparency. Note that pooled analysis could hide efficacy, for example a treatment that is beneficial for late stage patients but has no effect on viral replication or early stage disease could show no efficacy in pooled analysis if most studies only examine viral clearance. While we present pooled results, we also present individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use cases.

Currently, 36 of the treatments we analyze show statistically significant efficacy or harm, defined as ≥10% decreased risk or >0% increased risk from ≥3 studies. 97% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 3.1 months. When restricting to RCTs only, 55% of treatments showing statistically significant efficacy/harm with pooled effects have been confirmed with one or more specific outcomes, with a mean delay of 2.9 months.

The distribution of studies will alter the outcome of a meta analysis. Consider a simplified example where everything is equal except for the treatment delay, and effectiveness decreases to zero or below with increasing delay. If there are many studies using very late treatment, the outcome may be negative, even though early treatment is very effective. This may have a greater effect than pooling different outcomes such as mortality and hospitalization. For example a treatment may have 50% efficacy for mortality but only 40% for hospitalization when used within 48 hours. However efficacy could be 0% when used late.

All meta analyses combine heterogeneous studies, varying in population, variants, and potentially all factors above, and therefore may obscure efficacy by including studies where treatment is less effective. Generally, we expect the estimated effect size from meta analysis to be less than that for the optimal case. Looking at all studies is valuable for providing an overview of all research, important to avoid cherry-picking, and informative when a positive result is found despite combining less-optimal situations. However, the resulting estimate does not apply to specific cases such as early treatment in high-risk populations. While we present results for all studies, we also present treatment time and individual outcome analyses, which may be more informative for specific use cases.

Publishing is often biased towards positive results. Trials with patented drugs may have a financial conflict of interest that results in positive studies being more likely to be published, or bias towards more positive results. For example with molnupiravir, trials with negative results remain unpublished to date (CTRI/2021/05/033864 and CTRI/2021/08/0354242). For sotrovimab, there is currently not enough data to evaluate publication bias with high confidence.

One method to evaluate bias is to compare prospective vs. retrospective studies. Prospective studies are more likely to be published regardless of the result, while retrospective studies are more likely to exhibit bias. For example, researchers may perform preliminary analysis with minimal effort and the results may influence their decision to continue. Retrospective studies also provide more opportunities for the specifics of data extraction and adjustments to influence results.

Figure 16 shows a scatter plot of results for prospective and retrospective studies. 40% of retrospective studies report a statistically significant positive effect for one or more outcomes, compared to 50% of prospective studies, consistent with a bias toward publishing negative results. The median effect size for retrospective studies is 27% improvement, compared to 39% for prospective studies, suggesting a potential bias towards publishing results showing lower efficacy.

Funnel plots have traditionally been used for analyzing publication bias. This is invalid for COVID-19 acute treatment trials — the underlying assumptions are invalid, which we can demonstrate with a simple example. Consider a set of hypothetical perfect trials with no bias. Figure 17 plot A shows a funnel plot for a simulation of 80 perfect trials, with random group sizes, and each patient's outcome randomly sampled (10% control event probability, and a 30% effect size for treatment). Analysis shows no asymmetry (p > 0.05). In plot B, we add a single typical variation in COVID-19 treatment trials — treatment delay. Consider that efficacy varies from 90% for treatment within 24 hours, reducing to 10% when treatment is delayed 3 days. In plot B, each trial's treatment delay is randomly selected. Analysis now shows highly significant asymmetry, p < 0.0001, with six variants of Egger's test all showing p < 0.05 [Egger, Harbord, Macaskill, Moreno, Peters, Rothstein, Rücker, Stanley]. Note that these tests fail even though treatment delay is uniformly distributed. In reality treatment delay is more complex — each trial has a different distribution of delays across patients, and the distribution across trials may be biased (e.g., late treatment trials may be more common). Similarly, many other variations in trials may produce asymmetry, including dose, administration, duration of treatment, differences in SOC, comorbidities, age, variants, and bias in design, implementation, analysis, and reporting.

Summary statistics from meta analysis necessarily lose information. As with all meta analyses, studies are heterogeneous, with differences in treatment delay, treatment regimen, patient demographics, variants, conflicts of interest, standard of care, and other factors. We provide analyses by specific outcomes and by treatment delay, and we aim to identify key characteristics in the forest plots and summaries. Results should be viewed in the context of study characteristics.

Some analyses classify treatment based on early or late administration, as done here, while others distinguish between mild, moderate, and severe cases. Viral load does not indicate degree of symptoms — for example patients may have a high viral load while being asymptomatic. With regard to treatments that have antiviral properties, timing of treatment is critical — late administration may be less helpful regardless of severity.

Details of treatment delay per patient is often not available. For example, a study may treat 90% of patients relatively early, but the events driving the outcome may come from 10% of patients treated very late. Our 5 day cutoff for early treatment may be too conservative, 5 days may be too late in many cases.

Comparison across treatments is confounded by differences in the studies performed, for example dose, variants, and conflicts of interest. Trials affiliated with special interests may use designs better suited to the preferred outcome.

In some cases, the most serious outcome has very few events, resulting in lower confidence results being used in pooled analysis, however the method is simpler and more transparent. This is less critical as the number of studies increases. Restriction to outcomes with sufficient power may be beneficial in pooled analysis and improve accuracy when there are few studies, however we maintain our pre-specified method to avoid any retrospective changes.

Studies show that combinations of treatments can be highly synergistic and may result in many times greater efficacy than individual treatments alone [Alsaidi, Andreani, Biancatelli, De Forni, Gasmi, Jeffreys, Jitobaom, Jitobaom (B), Ostrov, Thairu]. Therefore standard of care may be critical and benefits may diminish or disappear if standard of care does not include certain treatments.

This real-time analysis is constantly updated based on submissions. Accuracy benefits from widespread review and submission of updates and corrections from reviewers. Less popular treatments may receive fewer reviews.

No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. Efficacy may vary significantly with different variants and within different populations. All treatments have potential side effects. Propensity to experience side effects may be predicted in advance by qualified physicians. We do not provide medical advice. Before taking any medication, consult a qualified physician who can compare all options, provide personalized advice, and provide details of risks and benefits based on individual medical history and situations.

2 of the 17 studies compare against other treatments, which may reduce the effect seen.

Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 16% [-1‑30%] improvement, without reaching statistical significance. Results are worse for Randomized Controlled Trials, similar after exclusions, and similar for peer-reviewed studies. Early treatment is more effective than late treatment. 7 studies from 7 independent teams in 3 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (4 for the most serious outcome).

Efficacy is variant dependent. In Vitro studies suggest lower efficacy for omicron BA.1 [Liu, Sheward, VanBlargan] and no efficacy for omicron BA.2 [Zhou]. US EUA has been revoked. Monoclonal antibody use with variants can be associated with prolonged viral loads, clinical deterioration, and immune escape [Choudhary].

[Aggarwal] Retrospective 30,247 outpatients in the USA, showing no significant differences with sotrovimab with omicron BA.1.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Aggarwal (B)] PSM retrospective 10,036 outpatients, 522 treated with sotrovimab, showing lower mortality and hospitalization with treatment.

Confounding by treatment propensity. This study analyzes a population where only a fraction of eligible patients received the treatment. Patients receiving treatment may be more likely to follow other recommendations, more likely to receive additional care, and more likely to receive adjuvant treatments that are not tracked in the data (e.g., nasal/oral hygiene [c19early.org (B), c19early.org (C)], vitamin D [c19early.org (D)], etc.) — either because the physician recommending sotrovimab also recommended them, or because the patient seeking out sotrovimab is more likely to be familiar with the efficacy of additional treatments. Therefore, these kind of studies may overestimate the efficacy of treatments.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Brown] Retrospective 186 patients in the UK treated with sotrovimab, and 222 eligible but declining treatment, showing no significant difference in hospitalization. No group details are provided and the results are subject to confounding by indication.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Evans] Retrospective high risk outpatients in the UK, showing lower hospitalization/death with sotrovimab treatment. Residual confounding is likely with adjustments having no detail on specific comorbidities.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Goodwin] Retrospective 604 outpatients in the UK, showing lower risk of hospitalization with sotrovimab treatment, without statistical significance due to the small number of hospitalizations.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Gupta] RCT 1,057 outpatients, 529 treated with sotrovimab, showing significantly lower hospitalization >24h or mortality with treatment.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Kip] Retrospective 2,571 patients treated with mAbs in the USA, and 5,135 control patients, showing lower combined mortality/hospitalization for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab, and bebtelovimab, with statistical significance only for casirivimab/imdevimab.

Confounding by treatment propensity. This study analyzes a population where only a fraction of eligible patients received the treatment. Patients receiving treatment may be more likely to follow other recommendations, more likely to receive additional care, and more likely to receive adjuvant treatments that are not tracked in the data (e.g., nasal/oral hygiene [c19early.org (B), c19early.org (C)], vitamin D [c19early.org (D)], etc.) — either because the physician recommending sotrovimab also recommended them, or because the patient seeking out sotrovimab is more likely to be familiar with the efficacy of additional treatments. Therefore, these kind of studies may overestimate the efficacy of treatments.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Kneidinger] Retrospective 218 COVID+ lung transplant patients in Germany, showing no significant difference in severe cases with early sotrovimab use.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Ong] Retrospective 19 sotrovimab patients and 75 controls is Singapore, showing lower progression with treatment.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Piccicacco] Retrospective high-risk outpatients in the USA, 82 treated with remdesivir, 88 with sotrovimab, and 90 control patients, showing significantly lower combined hospitalization/ER visits with both treatments in unadjusted results. The dominant variant was omicron B.1.1.529.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Self] RCT with 182 sotrovimab patients and 178 control patients, median 8 days from symptom onset, showing no significant differences and terminated early due to futility.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Suzuki] Retrospective 1,921 patients in Japan, showing no significant difference in progression with sotrovimab use.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Tazare] OpenSAFELY retrospective 75,048 outpatients in the UK, using the clone-censor-weight approach to address immortal time bias, showing lower combined mortality/hospitalization with sotrovimab treatment.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Woo] PSM retrospective 1,254 hospitalized patients in Germany, 147 treated with sotrovimab, showing higher mortality with sotrovimab, without statistical significance.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Zaqout] Retrospective 345 sotrovimab treated patients in Qatar matched with 583 patients that opted not to receive treatment, showing higher progression with treatment, without statistical significance.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Zheng] OpenSAFELY retrospective 7,683 outpatients in the UK, showing no significant difference in hospitalization/death between paxlovid and sotrovimab.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

[Zheng (B)] Retrospective 3,331 sotrovimab and 2,689 molnupiravir patients in the UK, showing lower risk of combined hospitalization/death with sotrovimab.

Submit Corrections or Updates.

We performed ongoing searches of PubMed, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Collabovid, Research Square, ScienceDirect, Oxford University Press, the reference lists of other studies and meta-analyses, and submissions to the site c19early.org. Search terms were sotrovimab, filtered for papers containing the terms COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2. Automated searches are performed every few hours with notification of new matches. All studies regarding the use of sotrovimab for COVID-19 that report a comparison with a control group are included in the main analysis. Sensitivity analysis is performed, excluding studies with major issues, epidemiological studies, and studies with minimal available information. This is a living analysis and is updated regularly.

We extracted effect sizes and associated data from all studies. If studies report multiple kinds of effects then the most serious outcome is used in pooled analysis, while other outcomes are included in the outcome specific analyses. For example, if effects for mortality and cases are both reported, the effect for mortality is used, this may be different to the effect that a study focused on. If symptomatic results are reported at multiple times, we used the latest time, for example if mortality results are provided at 14 days and 28 days, the results at 28 days are used. Mortality alone is preferred over combined outcomes. Outcomes with zero events in both arms were not used (the next most serious outcome is used — no studies were excluded). For example, in low-risk populations with no mortality, a reduction in mortality with treatment is not possible, however a reduction in hospitalization, for example, is still valuable. Clinical outcome is considered more important than PCR testing status. When basically all patients recover in both treatment and control groups, preference for viral clearance and recovery is given to results mid-recovery where available (after most or all patients have recovered there is no room for an effective treatment to do better). If only individual symptom data is available, the most serious symptom has priority, for example difficulty breathing or low SpO₂ is more important than cough. When results provide an odds ratio, we computed the relative risk when possible, or converted to a relative risk according to [Zhang]. Reported confidence intervals and p-values were used when available, using adjusted values when provided. If multiple types of adjustments are reported including propensity score matching (PSM), the PSM results are used. Adjusted primary outcome results have preference over unadjusted results for a more serious outcome when the adjustments significantly alter results. When needed, conversion between reported p-values and confidence intervals followed [Altman, Altman (B)], and Fisher's exact test was used to calculate p-values for event data. If continuity correction for zero values is required, we use the reciprocal of the opposite arm with the sum of the correction factors equal to 1 [Sweeting]. Results are expressed with RR < 1.0 favoring treatment, and using the risk of a negative outcome when applicable (for example, the risk of death rather than the risk of survival). If studies only report relative continuous values such as relative times, the ratio of the time for the treatment group versus the time for the control group is used. Calculations are done in Python (3.11.3) with scipy (1.10.1), pythonmeta (1.26), numpy (1.24.3), statsmodels (0.14.0), and plotly (5.14.1).

Forest plots are computed using PythonMeta [Deng] with the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model (the fixed effect assumption is not plausible in this case) and inverse variance weighting. Mixed-effects meta-regression results are computed with R (4.1.2) using the metafor (3.0-2) and rms (6.2-0) packages, and using the most serious sufficiently powered outcome.

We received no funding, this research is done in our spare time. We have no affiliations with any pharmaceutical companies or political parties.

We have classified studies as early treatment if most patients are not already at a severe stage at the time of treatment (for example based on oxygen status or lung involvement), and treatment started within 5 days of the onset of symptoms. If studies contain a mix of early treatment and late treatment patients, we consider the treatment time of patients contributing most to the events (for example, consider a study where most patients are treated early but late treatment patients are included, and all mortality events were observed with late treatment patients). We note that a shorter time may be preferable. Antivirals are typically only considered effective when used within a shorter timeframe, for example 0-36 or 0-48 hours for oseltamivir, with longer delays not being effective [McLean, Treanor].

Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above and gives priority to more serious outcomes. For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may differ from the effect a paper focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.

Effect extraction follows pre-specified rules as detailed above and gives priority to more serious outcomes. For pooled analyses, the first (most serious) outcome is used, which may differ from the effect a paper focuses on. Other outcomes are used in outcome specific analyses.

Supplementary Data