Publication status of 95 clinical trials of 3 COVID-19 vaccines developed by Chinese companies: An observational cohort study
=============================================================================================================================

* Till Bruckner
* Yixuan Chen
* Carolina Cruz
* Christie Ebube Dike
* Belen Chavarria
* Shiyu Chen
* Ernest Dela Dzidzornu

## Abstract

Transparency shortcomings can undermine confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines. This study assesses the publication status of 95 clinical trials of 3 COVID-19 vaccines developed by Chinese companies that received a World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing (EUL) and have been marketed globally. We searched trial registries and the scientific literature to assess current trial status and the public availability of results.

After excluding 2 withdrawn trials, we found that at least 62/93 trials (67%) involving 307,933 patients had verifiably been completed or terminated. Only 44 of those 62 trials (71%) had published results in a peer-reviewed journal; none had tabular summary results available on a trial registry. The results of 18/62 (29%) verifiably completed or terminated trials remained unpublished. The trial status information stated in trial registries was often incorrect.

Our findings reveal a substantial gap between the disclosure practices of the 3 Chinese companies and global best practice benchmarks. Transparency and global public trust in Chinese biopharmaceutical products could be improved by aligning Chinese legal disclosure requirements with those prevalent in more mature markets, or by the voluntary adoption of stronger transparency practices by Chinese companies.

## 1. Introduction

After the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in late 2019, the rapid development of vaccines became a global health priority even as members of the public voiced concerns that regulators might rush through approvals without due regard to vaccine safety and efficacy (1). Transparency in clinical trials of vaccines is essential to foster public trust and boost vaccine acceptance (2, 3).

However, the existing literature suggests that many COVID-19 vaccine trials were not fully transparent. A 2021 global report by Transparency International found that clinical trial protocols had been made public for only 12% of 86 clinical trials of 20 COVID-19 vaccines (4). Several Western pharmaceutical companies were criticised for incomplete disclosure of trial designs (5). Vaccine approvals by the Indian drug regulator did not follow existing pathways and lacked transparency (6). Chinese companies in particular were widely criticised for only releasing partial trial results (7, 8).

As of August 2023, a total of 3 COVID-19 vaccines developed by 3 different Chinese companies had successfully completed the World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) Emergency Use Listing (EUL) evaluation process, opening the door to international markets (9, 10). As of December 2022, more than 1,3 billion doses of these 3 vaccines had been exported to dozens of countries, significantly increasing the diversity and volume of global vaccine supply (11, 12).

This paper examines a key element of trial transparency by assessing the publication status of all clinical trials involving the 3 COVID-19 vaccines developed by Chinese companies that received an EUL from the WHO. While Chinese law requires vaccine trial results to be shared with the national medicines regulator, it does not require them to be made public (13).

However, irrespective of national laws, publication of trial results is an ethical obligation under the Declaration of Helsinki (14). According to global best practices set out in the WHO’s Joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials, the results of all clinical trials should be published on a public trial registry within 12 months of trial completion, and in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of trial completion (15). Sharing vaccine trial results with the public can support better understanding of vaccine effectiveness and potential adverse effects (16-18). Our hypothesis was that not all trial results had been made public.

## 2. Methodology

This study was preregistered on OSF ([https://osf.io/4f9k7](https://osf.io/4f9k7)). No UK Health Research Authority NHS REC ethics approval was required as the study exclusively used publicly available study-level data. Outcomes are reported in line with the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) guideline for cohort studies (19). Line-by-line data for trials are included within the manuscript as Table 6. This study did not receive external funding. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

### 2.1 Cohort selection

We extracted the registry numbers of clinical trials involving the 3 COVID-19 vaccines from the McGill University’s COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker website ([https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/](https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/)), which had last been updated on 02 December 2022 (11). We included all 95 clinical trials listed for the 3 vaccines in our study cohort (Table 2).

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/T1)

Table 1: Key Chinese COVID-19 vaccine exports as of December 2022

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/T2)

Table 2: Clinical trials involving 3 key Chinese vaccines

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/T3)

Table 3: Trial status as per registry data; n=95

View this table:
[Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/T4)

Table 4: Verifiably completed/terminated trials by phase and publication status; n=62

View this table:
[Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/T5)

Table 5: Verifiably completed/terminated trials by company and publication status; n=62

View this table:
[Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/T6)

Table 6: List of all 95 vaccine trials included in this study

### 2.2 Data collection and search strategy

First, we entered the trial registry ID numbers listed in the Covid-19 Vaccine Tracker into the ICTRP search function ([https://trialsearch.who.int/Default.aspx](https://trialsearch.who.int/Default.aspx)) to identify potential additional registry entries for each of the 95 trials.

Second, we manually extracted the following data from registry entries for each trial: trial status, completion date, and number of trial participants (actual if available, else planned). If a trial was registered on multiple registries, we would use registry data from registries in the following order of priority: ClinicalTrials.gov, ChiCTR, other registries.

Third, two researchers independently searched for the outcomes of each trial using a detailed search strategy set out in the study protocol ([https://osf.io/4f9k7](https://osf.io/4f9k7)). Briefly, we (a) scanned the “results” section of all relevant trial registries for tabular summary results or hyperlinked publications, (b) searched PubMed and Google Scholar for the clinical trial ID number(s), (c) searched PubMed and Google Scholar for the trial title and principal investigator. The three steps above were completed between 23 August 2023 and 5 September 2023.

We then reviewed all journal publications to verify that they described the outcome of the trial by matching the 4 PICO criteria (patient inclusion criteria, intervention, comparison and outcomes). As per protocol, we only counted tabular summary results on trial registries and full-length publications of final trial results in peer-reviewed journals as ‘reported’. We classified trial outcomes only published as preprints, conference abstracts, press releases or other grey literature as ‘unreported’. For each trial, we compared and reviewed the search results from 2 team members and resolved any remaining inconsistencies and ambiguities. We then extracted the date of each publication.

### 2.3 Outcome measures

The prespecified primary outcome measure was the number and percent of completed trials whose results remained unreported. Secondary outcome measures were the number and percentage of patients enrolled (planned or actual enrolment, depending on registry data availability for each trial) in completed trials whose results remained unreported, and the number and percentage of trials that met both WHO best practices in clinical trial reporting, i.e. results posted onto a public registry within 12 months of trial completion and results published in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of trial completion.

For the purpose of calculating the metrics above, we considered trials to have been completed if their status was marked as completed or terminated on a trial registry, and/or if the final outcomes had been made public on a trial registry or in a peer-reviewed journal (even if the registry still listed the trial as ongoing).

## 3. Results

According to registry data, 36/95 trials (38%) had been completed or terminated early as of 23 August 2023. 51/95 trials (54%) were listed as not yet completed. The status of 6/95 trials (6%) was marked as unknown. 2/95 trials (2%) had been withdrawn before recruiting any participants; we excluded these 2 withdrawn trials from further analysis, leaving 93 trials.

![Chart 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/F1.medium.gif)

[Chart 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/F1)

Chart 1: Trial status as per registry data; n=95

The trial status information listed in trial registries was often incorrect. We located published outcomes for 44/93 trials that had not been withdrawn (47%), but less than half of those trials were listed as completed or terminated in registries.

A trial is only listed as completed or terminated on a registry if the record holder has actively performed the relevant update after the initial registration, so we assume that those status data are correct. In addition, the trials for which we located published final outcomes are evidently no longer ongoing. Therefore, combining registry status data and located publications indicates that at least 62/93 trials (67%) had verifiably been completed or terminated at the time of data extraction. In total, 307,933 patients participated in those 62 trials.

![Chart 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/F2.medium.gif)

[Chart 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/18/2024.03.17.24304386/F2)

Chart 2: Trial status on registries and results publication status; n=93

Only 44 of those 62 trials (71%) had published results in a peer-reviewed journal, in all cases within less than 24 months of trial completion or termination. The results of 18/62 (29%) verifiably completed or terminated trials remained unpublished. One trial ([NCT05049226](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT05049226&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F18%2F2024.03.17.24304386.atom)) only had results available as a preprint; as per protocol, we classified this trial as unreported.

The disclosure performance of the 3 companies varies. CanSino performed best with publishing the outcomes of 9/11 verifiably completed or terminated trials (82%), followed by Sinovac (22/28 trials; 79%) and Sinopharm (13/23 trials; 57%).

According to trial enrolment data on registries, trial outcome data for 108,478 out of 307,933 patients (35%) who participated in the 62 verifiably completed or terminated trials remains unpublished. As none of the 62 trials had tabular summary results available on a trial registry, all trials fell short of WHO best practices in clinical trial reporting.

## 4. Discussion

Our research shows that the 3 most prominent Chinese companies producing COVID-19 vaccines currently fall significantly short of global best practices in clinical trial transparency. The results of 18 verifiably completed or terminated trials of key Chinese COVID-19 vaccines involving 108,478 patients remained unpublished. At first glance, the non-publication rate of 29% is comparable to or lower than non-publication rates documented for large cohorts of clinical trials in other countries (20-22). However, the actual number and percentage of unreported trials in our cohort are likely to be higher due to the Chinese companies’ failure to consistently update the status of their trials on registries. In addition, large pharmaceutical companies in the European Union and the United States typically have strong compliance with laws requiring them to publish the tabular summary results of many Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials, and therefore probably significantly outperform their Chinese competitors on this key transparency metric (23, 24).

Our research has important limitations. First, we almost certainly undercounted trials that had been completed or terminated but not published results due to the companies’ failure to consistently update the status of their trials on registries. Second, we did not assess the completeness and accuracy of published results. Third, we did not assess whether the WHO or various national medicines regulators were able to access trial outcome data that are not publicly available.

The COVID-19 pandemic marked the emergence of several Chinese companies as global players in vaccine research, development, production and export. Chinese companies made a significant contribution to improving access to COVID-19 vaccines in the Global South. However, trial registry data management and trial outcome disclosure practices by three of the most prominent Chinese vaccine exporters fell significantly short of European and American competitors’ standards and WHO global best practices.

The future global expansion of Chinese biopharmaceutical companies might benefit from a stronger alignment of Chinese national disclosure laws with corresponding European and U.S. laws that mandate disclosure of many trial results (25-27). Alternatively, Chinese companies could build confidence in international markets by improving their disclosure practices on a voluntary basis. We hope that other researchers will build on our work by assessing publication bias and research waste in larger cohorts of Chinese commercial and non-commercial trials, and by systematically comparing the performance of major Chinese sponsors with those in the European Union, India, the United States, and other global hubs of biomedical innovation.

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors 

## Footnotes

*   (joint first authors)

*   [www.transparimed.org](http://www.transparimed.org)

*   Received March 17, 2024.
*   Revision received March 17, 2024.
*   Accepted March 18, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Hamel L, Kearney, A., Kirzinger, A., Lopes, L., Muñana, C., Brodie, M. KFF Health Tracking Poll - September 2020: Top Issues in 2020 Election, The Role of Misinformation, and Views on A Potential Coronavirus Vaccine. [https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-health-tracking-poll-september-2020/](https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-health-tracking-poll-september-2020/); 2020. [cited 26 Sept 2023]
    
    

2.  2.Larson HJ, Cooper LZ, Eskola J, Katz SL, Ratzan S. Addressing the vaccine confidence gap. The Lancet. 2011;378(9790):526–35.
    
    

3.  3.Mahase E. Covid-19: Vaccine trials need more transparency to enable scrutiny and earn public trust, say experts. bmj. 2020;371.
    
    

4.  4.Rhodes N WT, Rusu V. For Whose Benefit? Transparency in the development and procurement of COVID-19 vaccines. [http://ti-health.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/For-Whose-Benefit-Transparency-International.pdf](http://ti-health.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/For-Whose-Benefit-Transparency-International.pdf); 2021. [cited 26 Sept 2023]
    
    

5.  5.Thomas K. Vaccine Makers Keep Safety Details Quiet, Alarming Scientists. The New York Times. 2020. Available from: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/science/coronavirus-vaccine-trials.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/science/coronavirus-vaccine-trials.html). [cited 26 Sept 2023]
    
    

6.  6.Thakur DS, Thikkavarapu PR. The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India: Simon and Schuster; 2022.
    
    

7.  7.Gan NaA, T. Chinese Covid-19 vaccine far less effective than initially claimed in Brazil, sparking concerns. CNN. 2021. Available from: [https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/asia/sinovac-covid-vaccine-efficacy-intl-hnk/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/13/asia/sinovac-covid-vaccine-efficacy-intl-hnk/index.html). [cited 26 Sept 2023]
    
    

8.  8.Mallapaty S. China’s COVID vaccines are going global—but questions remain. Nature. 2021;593(7858):178–9.
    
    

9.  9.WHO. Status of COVID-19 Vaccines within WHO EUL/PQ evaluation process. [https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/Status\_COVID\_VAX\_08AUgust2023.pdf2023](https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/sites/default/files/documents/Status_COVID_VAX_08AUgust2023.pdf2023). [cited 26 Sept 2023]
    
    

10. 10.WHO. COVID-19 Vaccines with WHO Emergency Use Listing. [https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/vaccines/vaccinescovid-19-vaccine-eul-issued2023](https://extranet.who.int/pqweb/vaccines/vaccinescovid-19-vaccine-eul-issued2023). [cited 26 Sept 2023]
    
    

11. 11.COVID19 Vaccine Tracker [Internet]. 2022. Available from: [https://covid19.trackvaccines.org](https://covid19.trackvaccines.org). [cited 27 Sept 2023]
    
    

12. 12.China COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker [Internet]. 2022. Available from: [https://bridgebeijing.com/our-publications/our-publications-1/china-covid-19-vaccines-tracker/#Sinovac\_8211\_CoronaVac\_COVID-19\_Vaccine](https://bridgebeijing.com/our-publications/our-publications-1/china-covid-19-vaccines-tracker/#Sinovac\_8211_CoronaVac_COVID-19_Vaccine). [cited 27 Sept 2023]
    
    

13. 13.Chen Y, Walters J, Bruckner T. Clinical Trial Registration and Reporting in China and the United States: Legal and Regulatory Frameworks, Compliance and Enforcement. Preprints: Preprints; 2023. Available from: doi:10.20944/preprints202310.1108.v1. [cited 20 Oct 2023]
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.20944/preprints202310.1108.v1&link_type=DOI) 

14. 14.WMA. In: Association WM, editor. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. [https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/2013](https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/2013). [cited 13 Aug 2023]
    
    

15. 15.WHO. Joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials. In: Organization WH, editor. [https://www.who.int/news/item/18-05-2017-joint-statement-on-registration2017](https://www.who.int/news/item/18-05-2017-joint-statement-on-registration2017). [cited 13 Aug 2023]
    
    

16. 16.Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DM, Paterson P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine. 2014;32(19):2150–9.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.081&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24598724&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F18%2F2024.03.17.24304386.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000335632200004&link_type=ISI) 

17. 17.Cordero Jr DA. Rebuilding public trust: a clarified response to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy predicament. Journal of Public Health. 2021;43(2):e303–e4.
    
    

18. 18.Moorthy VS, Karam G, Vannice KS, Kieny MP. Rationale for WHO’s new position calling for prompt reporting and public disclosure of interventional clinical trial results. PLoS Med. 2015;12(4):e1001819.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001819&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25874642&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F18%2F2024.03.17.24304386.atom) 

19. 19.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bmj. 2007;335(7624):806–8.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMzUvNzYyNC84MDYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8xOC8yMDI0LjAzLjE3LjI0MzA0Mzg2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

20. 20.Franzen DL, Carlisle BG, Salholz-Hillel M, Riedel N, Strech D. Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study. PLOS Medicine. 2023;20(3):e1004175.
    
    

21. 21.Nelson JT, Tse T, Puplampu-Dove Y, Golfinopoulos E, Zarin DA. Comparison of Availability of Trial Results in [ClinicalTrials.gov](http://ClinicalTrials.gov) and PubMed by Data Source and Funder Type. JAMA. 2023;329(16):1404–6.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2023.2351&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36995689&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F18%2F2024.03.17.24304386.atom) 

22. 22.Nilsonne G, Wieschowski S, DeVito NJ, Salholz-Hillel M, Bruckner T, Klas K, et al. Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed. medRxiv 2024. p. 2024.02.04.24301363. Available from: [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/05/2024.02.04.24301363.full.pdf](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/02/05/2024.02.04.24301363.full.pdf). [cited 12 March 2024]
    
    

23. 23.DeVito NJ, Bacon S, Goldacre B. Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cohort study. The Lancet. 2020;395(10221):361–9.
    
    

24. 24.Goldacre B, DeVito NJ, Heneghan C, Irving F, Bacon S, Fleminger J, et al. Compliance with requirement to report results on the EU Clinical Trials Register: cohort study and web resource. Bmj. 2018;362:k3218.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNjIvc2VwMTJfOC9rMzIxOCI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzE4LzIwMjQuMDMuMTcuMjQzMDQzODYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

25. 25.NLM. FDAAA 801 and the Final Rule.. [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa2017](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa2017). Available from: [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa). [cited 13 Jan 2023]
    
    

26. 26.Bruckner T. Clinical trial regulation in Europe - Legal reporting requirements and regulatory strategies in seven key countries. Netherlands: Health Action International; 2022 2022-10-03. Available from: [https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3837257/clinical-trial-regulation-in-europe/](https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3837257/clinical-trial-regulation-in-europe/). [cited 12 March 2024]
    
    

27. 27.Petrini C. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use: an overview. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2014;50(4):317–21.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25522070&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F18%2F2024.03.17.24304386.atom)