ArticleHeliyon2024
Safety and efficacy of RCP recombinant spike protein covid-19 vaccine compared to Sinopharm BBIBP: A phase III, non-inferiority trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Current status of intranasal and inhaled COVID-19 vaccines.NPJ vaccines · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We conducted a phase III, non-inferiority trial comparing safety and efficacy of RCP recombinant spike protein Covid-19 vaccine to BBIBP (Sinopharm). Methods: Adult Iranian population received RCP or BBIBP in a randomized, double blind and an additional non-randomized open labeled trial arms. Eligible participants signed a written informed consent and received two intramuscular injections three weeks apart. In the randomized arm, an intranasal dose of vaccine or adjuvant-only preparation were given to the RCP and BBIBP recipients at day 51 respectively. Participants were actively followed for up to 4 months for safety and efficacy outcomes. Primary outcome was PCR + symptomatic Covid-19 disease two weeks after the second dose. The non-inferiority margin was 10% of reported BBIBP vaccine efficacy (HR = 1.36). Results: We recruited 23,110 participants (7224 in the randomized and 15,886 in the non-randomized arm). We observed 604 primary outcome events during 4 months of active follow-up including 121 and 133 in the randomized and 157 and 193 cases in the non-randomized arms among recipients of RCP and BBIBP respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome in those receiving RCP compared with BBIBP interval were 0.91 (0.71-1.16) and 0.62 (0.49-0.77) in the randomized and non-randomized arms respectively. The upper boundary of 99.1% confidence interval of HR = 0.91 (0.67-1.22) remained below the margin of non-inferiority in the randomized arm after observing the early stopping rules using O'Brien Fleming method. Conclusion: Our study showed that the RCP efficacy is non-inferior and its safety profile is comparable to the BBIBP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.