Trial NCT05585567
Publication He Q, J. Clin. Med., 2022
Dates: 2022-08-15 to 2022-09-16
Funding: Mixed (The Emergency Key Program of Guangzhou Laboratory; Livzon Pharmaceutical Group Inc)
Conflict of interest: Yes
Methods | |
RCT | |
Location :
Single center / China Follow-up duration (months): 1 | |
BV-01-B5 =(n=24)
V-01=(n=12) |
|
Inclusion criteria |
|
Exclusion criteria |
|
Interventions | |
Intervention
1 dose of 20 mcg bivalent BV-01-B5 7-9 months after a third dose of an inactivated virus vaccine. |
|
Control
1 dose of 10 mcg V-01 7-9 months after a third dose of an inactivated virus vaccine. | |
Participants | |
Randomized 36 participants | |
Characteristics of participants Type of participants: Healthy adults N=36 19 males Children: 0 Pregnant women: 0 Immunocompromized patients: 0 Mean age: Age range: 20-55 | |
Description of participants Healthy adults, aged 18 -59 years old, with no previous COVID-19 infection that had received three doses of ICV (CoronaVac) in one center in China | |
Primary outcome | |
In the register Adverse Event (AE) [ Time Frame: 30 minutes after vaccination ] Observe the AEs occurs at different time point after vaccination AEs [ Time Frame: 0-7 days after vaccination ] Observe the AEs occurs at different time point after vaccination AEs [ Time Frame: 0-28 days after vaccination ] Observe the AEs occurs at different time point after vaccination Serious adverse event (SAE) and adverse event of special interest (AESI) [ Time Frame: Within 12 months after vaccination ] Observe the SAE and AESI after vaccination Neutralizing antibody geometric mean titer (GMT) of Omicron BA.5 [ Time Frame: 28 days after vaccination ] Neutralizing antibody GMT of the most prevalent SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron BA.5) | |
In the report The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and immuno- genicity of BV-01-B5 boosters compared to V-01 | |
Documents available |
Protocol NR Statistical plan * Data-sharing stated:
Unclear |
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 retrospective registry was used in data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The target sample size specified in the registry was not achieved. The article present preliminary results for a pilot trial with on-going follow-up. There were no important differences between registry and published report in population, procedures, interventions or outcomes. |