MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416599723 · doi:10.1007/s40268-025-00529-2

Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Viral Pharmacodynamics of the Monoclonal Antibody Sotrovimab Administered via Intramuscular Injection in Participants with Early, Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2025· article· en· W4416599723 on OpenAlexaff
Anil Kumar Gupta, Maria Teresa Perez-Rodríguez, Yaneicy Gonzalez‐Rojas, Moti Ramgopal, Almena Free, Jennifer Han, Jennifer Moore, Naomi Givens, Phillip J. Yates, Jill Walker, Mary Beth Connolly, Gretja Schnell, Varsha Imber, Rabia Anselm, Lindsay Winograd, Scott Segal, Stephen A. Harrison, Andrew Skingsley, Melissa Aldinger, Amanda Peppercorn, Jaynier Moya

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in R&D · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntramuscular injections and effects
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)Etobicoke General Hospital
FundersGlaxoSmithKline BiologicalsVir Biotechnology
KeywordsPharmacodynamicsMonoclonal antibodyRandomized controlled trialIntramuscular injectionClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutics, including intramuscular (IM) formulations, may increase patient access. In COMET-TAIL, sotrovimab 500 mg IM was non-inferior to 500 mg intravenous (IV) in reducing the risk of COVID-19 progression; however, 250 mg IM was associated with more hospitalizations, despite similar viral load (VL) reductions to 500 mg IM. COMET-PEAK was a randomized, three-part study to assess safety, tolerability, and viral pharmacodynamics of sotrovimab in adults with early, mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Parts B/C evaluated sotrovimab 500-mg IV infusion versus 500-mg or 250-mg IM injection. The primary objective was to compare virologic response of sotrovimab IM versus IV (mean area under the curve from day 1 to day 8 [AUCD1–8] of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] VL); 90% confidence interval (CI) limits of 0.5–2.0 indicated equivalence. Parts B/C included 167 and 157 participants, respectively. Median age range was 42–47 years, and approximately 50% of participants had one or more risk factor for severe disease. The primary objective was met: the ratio of geometric mean VL AUCD1–8 of sotrovimab IM versus IV was 1.04 (90% CI 0.98–1.09; Part B) and 1.02 (90% CI 0.94–1.11; Part C). No new safety signals emerged for sotrovimab; IM administration was well tolerated, with few injection-site reactions. Both sotrovimab IM doses were equivalent to 500 mg IV with respect to SARS-CoV-2 VL change. IM administration was safe and well tolerated. The validity of VL as a biomarker for COVID-19 progression warrants further study. NCT04779879 (date of first registration: March 3, 2021), https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04779879 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs in R&DSame topicIntramuscular injections and effectsFrench-language works237,207