Login / Signup

Sotrovimab in the treatment of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Ana Flávia da Silva AmorimJoselin Valeska Martinez SobalvarroLarissa Helena Lobo TorresTiago Marques Dos Reis
Published in: Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology (2024)
This study was carried out to verify the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of sotrovimab in patients with COVID-19. This is a systematic review of randomized clinical trials retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Lilacs, and Cochrane Library databases. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk and Bias Checklist (RoB 2). For the meta-analysis, RStudio Version 2024.04.2 software was used. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022355786). A total of 1893 studies were identified and four were included in the study. The total population consisted of 5470 patients with COVID-19, 1921 (35%) in the sotrovimab group and 3549 (65%) in the control group (placebo or BRII-196 + BRII-198 or casirivimab + imdevimab or bamlanivimab + etesevimab, administered in a similar way to sotrovimab, in a single dose with a 60-min intravenous infusion). For the effectiveness outcome, three studies presented low risk and one high risk of bias, while for safety all presented high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the sotrovimab and control groups in terms of hospitalization rates (95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.10-0.51; p = 0 > 0.05), use of invasive mechanical ventilation (95% CI - 2.78-0.65; p = 0.35) and mortality (95% CI - 0.92-0.59; p = 0.39). However, sensitivity analysis showed that sotrovimab may be effective in reducing hospitalization rates compared to the control (IV =  - 1.57; 95% CI - 2.41-0.73; p = 0.99). The use of sotrovimab in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 had no significant impact on mortality and need for mechanical ventilation and did not appear to be safer compared to controls. However, there was evidence of effectiveness in reducing the rate of hospitalization, although the certainty of the evidence is moderate and the risk of bias is high.
Keyphrases