Trial NCT04526990
Publication Halperin SA, Lancet, 2021
Dates: 2020-09-22 to 2021-03-15
Funding: Private (CanSino Biologics and the Beijing Institute of Biotechnology)
Conflict of interest: Yes
Methods | |
RCT | |
Location :
Multicenter / Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia Follow-up duration (months): * | |
Ad5-nCoV (n= 18493) Placebo (n= 18489) | |
Inclusion criteria |
|
Exclusion criteria |
|
Interventions | |
Intervention
1 IM Ad5-nCoV vaccine standard (5×10¹⁰ vp) dose |
|
Control
1 IM dose placebo | |
Participants | |
Randomized 36982 participants | |
Characteristics of participants Type of participants: Healthy adults N=36982 24241 males Children: 0 Pregnant women: 0 Immunocompromized patients: 0 Mean age: Age range: 18.0-91.5 | |
Description of participants Healthy adults with no history of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 at 66 sites in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, and Russia | |
Primary outcome | |
In the register 1) Incidence of COVID-19 cases [ Time Frame: day 28 to 12 months post vaccination ] The efficacy of Ad5-nCoV in preventing virologically confirmed (PCR positive) COVID-19 disease; 2) Incidence of SAE [ Time Frame: Within 12 months ] Evaluate the incidence of severe adverse events (SAE) | |
In the report 1) incidence of serious adverse events and medically attended adverse events after vaccination; 2) prevention of symptomatic, real-time PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection occurring 28 days after vaccination | |
Documents available |
Protocol Yes. In English Statistical plan Yes Data-sharing stated:
Yes, De-identified individual participant data will be made available after 9 months and until 36 months following completion of the final study report |
Risk of bias Overall The overall risk of bias reported in the table corresponds to the highest risk of bias for the outcomes assessed for the systematic review |
Some concerns |
General comment | In addition to the published article, the study registry and protocol were used in data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The efficacy outcomes were assessed using an interim analysis where participants were still being recruited at data cut-off. The study enrolled a full safety cohort, per-protocol efficacy cohort, a smaller safety cohort for close monitoring of solicited adverse events, and a smaller immunogenicity cohort - all pre-planned. There were no important differences between protocol/registry and published report in population, procedures, interventions or outcomes. |