Efficacy and safety of regdanvimab in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis

AimsThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regdanvimab, an anti-SARS-COV-2 monoclonal antibody approved by the European Medicines Agency in November 2021, for the treatment of confirmed COVID-19 disease. MethodsCochrane Library, PubMed, medRxiv and Google Scholar were searched for relevant evidence up to October 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. Data were analysed using RevMan software. ResultsEight studies involving 4793 patients were included. A significant difference was observed between the regdanvimab and no-regdanvimab groups in terms of length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD] = -1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.80 to -0.43), clinical recovery (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.38 to 3.18), disease progression (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.33), the need for oxygen therapy (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.43) and duration of oxygen therapy (MD = -3.00, 95% CI: -4.44 to -1.56). However, no significant difference was detected between 2 groups regarding mortality rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.11 to 1.89), need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.89) and hospital admission rate (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.03). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.18). ConclusionRegdanvimab was not effective in reducing mortality and hospital admission rate in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, but it was effective in improving other efficacy outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of regdanvimab, an anti-SARS-COV-2 monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of confirmed COVID-19. Eight studies involving 4793 patients were included, showing significant differences in terms of hospital stay, clinical recovery, disease progression, oxygen therapy need, and duration. However, no significant differences were found in mortality rate, mechanical ventilation need, and hospital admission rate. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.