ArticleJournal of medical virology2025
Comparative Analysis of Early COVID-19 Treatment Efficacy in a Multicentric Regional Cohort in Italy: Emulation of a Series of Target Trials.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies comparing all available strategies for the early treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 during the Omicron era are lacking. We included people with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and at high risk of progressing to severe disease attending five outpatient clinics in Italy over 2022-2023. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who experienced Day-30 hospitalization due to COVID-19 or death. Participants received either nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), molnupiravir (MLP), remdesivir (RDV), sotrovimab (SOT), or tixagevimab/cilgavimab (TIX/CIL). We included 10 038 individuals: females 5052 (50%), median age 71 years (IQR 59-81). In total, 1919 (19%) received SOT, 3732 (37.2%) MLP, 1444 (14%) RDV, 2510 (25%) NMV/r, and 433 (4%) TIX/CIL. Only 1689 (17%) had incomplete vaccination, and 2435 (24.3%) were not immunocompetent. The rate of hospitalization/death was 2.40% (95% CI 2.10-2.71). Unadjusted rates were 0.88% (95% CI 0.55-1.32) for NMV/r, 1.69% (95% CI 1.30-2.15) for MLP, 3.0% (95% CI 1.61-5.08) for TIX/CIL, 3.54% (95% CI 2.76-4.47) for SOT and 5.12% (95% CI 4.05-6.39) for RDV. Weighted analysis showed that NMV/r and MLP were superior to all other interventions. In our population of individuals at high risk of progression to severe disease, there was clinical benefit in using NMV/r or MLP instead of mAbs-based therapies or RDV.
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.