So here is a peer review of another product on bigger scale , longer term , different cohort - how does it compare? If you were a distributor or hospital group , airline, cruise company what would you choose?

Here is the one for pHOXWELL’s clinical trial involving at-risk, unvaccinated healthcare workers conducted in 2021 and peer reviewed and published July 2022. How well is it selling?

I hope other posters can pull up some more trials so SPL shareholders know where the hurdle is that they need to exceed to be the gold standard of nasal sprays I'll leave it to someone else to post up the biosure trial or just for fun the animal study on Siberian Hamsters

http://raphaellabs.com/pr/pHOXWELL_Paper_Press_Release_July_26th.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653222001809

Journal of Clinical Virology

Volume 155, October 2022, 105248

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of a novel prophylactic nasal spray in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A multi-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

Author links open overlay panel

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2022.105248Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license

open access

Highlights

• •

  A randomised control trial of the efficacy of a nasal spray against SARS-CoV-2.

• •

  The spray combines natural viricidal agents with mechanisms to prevent viral entry.

• •

  The test agent significantly reduced the infection rate from 34.5% to 13.1%.

• •

  Fewer patients were symptomatic in the test group [17.6% vs 34.6%; p < 0.0001].

• •

  No serious adverse events were reported in either arm of the study.

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to devastate communities all over the world. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the test agent as a prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a population of high-risk healthcare workers.

Methods The study was a multi-centre, prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Key eligibility criteria included absence of significant co-morbidity and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Participants were randomised to either the active agent nasal spray or placebo using computer generated random number tables. The nasal spray was administered 3 times daily over a 45 day course. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects who tested positive for IgGS (anti-spike, immunoglobulin G specific to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2) at day 45.

Results Between 16th April 2021 and 26th July 2021, 556 participants were analysed for the primary endpoint (275 Test; 281 Placebo). The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to placebo [36 cases (13.1%) Vs 97 cases (34.5%); OR 0.29 (95% CI; 0.18–0.45), p < 0.0001]. Fewer clinical symptoms were also seen in the test group [57 cases (17.6%) vs 112 cases (34.6%); OR 0.40, (95% CI; 0.27–0.59), p < 0.0001]. No harmful effects were associated with taking the test agent.

Conclusion The test agent significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers, with 62% fewer infections when compared to placebo. It was found to be safe and well tolerated and offers a novel treatment option for prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection.