SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Adverse events associated with monoclonal antibodies used for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adverse events associated with monoclonal antibodies used for treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Adverse Event Profiles of Monoclonal Antibodies: A Descriptive Analysis of FAERS Data.Health services insights · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis review aimed to synthesise the evidence related to the incidence of serious and non-serious adverse events with the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) among COVID-19 patients.
methodsDatabases were searched from January 2020 to September 2023 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that used mAbs for the treatment of COVID-19 regardless of disease severity. Study screening, data extraction and data analysis were performed independently by two reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias 1.0 tool was used for methodological quality assessment.
resultsSixteen studies were identified for analysis with 9682 participants in the intervention arm and 10 115 participants in the control arm. Seven trials reported hepatoxicity and there was a statistically significant increase in the chance of hepatoxicity among patients treated with mAbs compared to those given standard of care (SoC) or placebo with risk ratio (RR) = 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29-2.24. Five trials reported for neutropenia and there was a statistically significant association of neutropenia with the use of mAbs compared to SoC or placebo with RR = 4.03, 95% CI 1.74-9.34. Ten trials reported any disease-related serious adverse events related to the disease and there was a reduction of risk compared to SoC/placebo, although this reduction was not statistically significant (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.70-1.11).
conclusionsThe use of mAbs was found to be associated with an increased risk of hepatoxicity and neutropenia compared to SoC/placebo among COVID-19 patients with moderate certainty of evidence. Long-term observational studies are recommended to observe post-COVID adverse events related to the use of mAbs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.