Skip to content

Qiling Yiqi Tablets Plus Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Immune Non-responders With Lung-Spleen Qi Deficiency

A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Qiling Yiqi Tablets Combined With Antiretroviral Therapy for Immune Reconstitution Failure in People With HIV and Lung-Spleen Qi Deficiency Syndrome

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07698574
Acronym
QLYQ-INR-pRCT
Enrollment
240
Registered
2026-07-13
Start date
2026-08-01
Completion date
2029-02-01
Last updated
2026-07-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, HIV-1 Infection, Immune Reconstitution Failure, Immunological Non-responder, Lung-Spleen Qi Deficiency Syndrome

Keywords

HIV, AIDS, immune non-responder, incomplete immune reconstitution, ART, CD4+ T cell, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Qiling Yiqi Tablets, pragmatic randomized controlled trial, pRCT

Brief summary

This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates whether Qiling Yiqi Tablets combined with antiretroviral therapy (ART) improves immune reconstitution in people with HIV who meet criteria for immune reconstitution failure and lung-spleen qi deficiency syndrome. Eligible participants are adults aged 18 to 60 years with HIV-1 infection, long-term viral suppression on ART, and persistently low CD4+ T-cell counts. A total of 240 participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive Qiling Yiqi Tablets plus ART or ART alone. Treatment lasts 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcomes are absolute CD4+ T-cell count and immune reconstitution response rate. Secondary outcomes include immune homeostasis markers, T-cell activation and Treg proportion, thymic output and inflammation-related markers, HIV RNA viral load, quality of life, clinical symptom scores, all-cause mortality, and safety.

Detailed description

This is a prospective, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Participants will be recruited from three HIV treatment-designated hospitals in high-prevalence regions in China. Eligible participants will be randomized by center-stratified block randomization at a 1:1 ratio to the experimental arm or control arm. Randomization codes will be generated using SAS by personnel independent from the clinical trial. The ART regimen is not restricted and follows applicable domestic and international ART guidelines. Clinical data will be collected using a unified CRF/eCRF and managed through an EDC platform with de-identified study codes and access controls.

Interventions

DRUGQiling Yiqi Tablets plus ART

Qiling Yiqi Tablets: Qiling Yiqi Tablets are a marketed Chinese patent medicine (NMPA approval No. Z20050483; Sichuan Enwei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.). The formula includes Astragalus, Codonopsis, Atractylodes macrocephala, Poria, and related components. Dose: 6 tablets orally three times daily after meals with warm water for 48 weeks.Participants receive Qiling Yiqi Tablets orally in addition to their background ART regimen for 48 weeks.

Background ART regimen according to applicable domestic and international ART guidelines.

Sponsors

Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
Lead SponsorOTHER
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
CollaboratorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Parallel Assignment

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 60 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Aged 18 to 60 years, male or female. CD4+ T lymphocyte count \<350 cells/uL. Meets diagnostic criteria for HIV-1 infection according to the Chinese Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of HIV/AIDS (2024 edition). Meets diagnostic criteria for incomplete immune reconstitution: ART for more than 4 years; peripheral blood viral load below the lower limit of detection (\<50 copies/mL) for more than 3 years; persistent CD4+ T-cell count \<350 cells/uL; and exclusion of other causes of long-term low CD4+ T-cell count. Meets the Traditional Chinese Medicine diagnostic criteria for lung-spleen qi deficiency syndrome, supported by the designated four-diagnostic instrument (model SZY-ZM-1) where applicable. Voluntarily agrees to participate and signs informed consent. -

Exclusion criteria

Uncontrolled acute or chronic physical or mental illness. Poor adherence to ART. WBC \<2 x 10\^9/L, neutrophils \<1.0 x 10\^9/L, hemoglobin \<90 g/L, platelets \<75 x 10\^9/L, or abnormal hepatic/renal function. Hepatic abnormality is defined as AST, ALT, or total bilirubin \>=2 times the upper limit of normal; renal abnormality is defined as creatinine clearance below the normal value. Other serious comorbid disease, such as tumor, cirrhosis, or cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease. Pregnancy, lactation, or recent plan for pregnancy/childbearing. Use of immunosuppressants or immunomodulators within 6 months before screening. Any other condition judged by the investigator to make the participant unsuitable for the study. \-

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Absolute CD4+ T-cell countWeek 48Change in absolute CD4+ T-cell count, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Immune reconstitution response rateWeek 48Response is defined as CD4+ T-cell count \>350 cells/uL or a \>=30% increase from baseline; non-response is defined as a \<30% increase from baseline.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Absolute CD4+ T-cell countWeek 96.Change in absolute CD4+ T-cell count, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Immune reconstitution response rateWeek 96.Response is defined as CD4+ T-cell count \>350 cells/uL or a \>=30% increase from baseline; non-response is defined as a \<30% increase from baseline.
CD4+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD4+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD4+/CD8+ ratioBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD4+/CD8+ ratio, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD8+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD8+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD45RA+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD45RA+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD45RO+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD45RO+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD4+CD28+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD4+CD28+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD8+CD38+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD8+CD38+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD4+CD38+ T-cell proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD4+CD38+ T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD38+/HLA-DR+ T-cell activation markerBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD38+/HLA-DR+ T-cell activation marker, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Treg proportionBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in regulatory T-cell proportion, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
TRECs levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in T-cell receptor excision circles level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD3+ T-cell levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD3+ T-cell level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
CD31+ T-cell levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in CD31+ T-cell level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
IL-2 levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in interleukin-2 level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
IL-4 levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in interleukin-4 level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
IL-6 levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in interleukin-6 level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
IL-10 levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in interleukin-10 level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
IL-17A levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in interleukin-17A level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
TNF-alpha levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in tumor necrosis factor-alpha level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
IFN-gamma levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in interferon-gamma level, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
HIV RNA viral loadBaseline; Weeks 48 and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in HIV RNA viral load, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Quality of life scoreBaseline; Weeks 48, 60, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Change in quality of life score assessed using the WHOQOL-HIV-BREF questionnaire, compared between the two randomized groups.
TCM syndrome response rateBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 78, and 96 were observed. The treatment-period and follow-up assessments were Weeks 48 and 96.Response is defined as a \>=30% decrease in TCM syndrome score from baseline; non-response is defined as a \<30% decrease from baseline.
All-cause mortality rateFrom randomization through Week 96.Death from any cause during the study period, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Red blood cell countBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in red blood cell count as a blood routine safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
White blood cell countBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in white blood cell count as a blood routine safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Hemoglobin levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in hemoglobin level as a blood routine safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Platelet countBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in platelet count as a blood routine safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Absolute neutrophil countBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in absolute neutrophil count as a blood routine safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Absolute lymphocyte countBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in absolute lymphocyte count as a blood routine safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Aspartate aminotransferase levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in aspartate aminotransferase level as a liver function safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Alanine aminotransferase levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in alanine aminotransferase level as a liver function safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Gamma-glutamyl transferase levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in gamma-glutamyl transferase level as a liver function safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Blood urea nitrogen levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in blood urea nitrogen level as a renal function safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups
Serum creatinine levelBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in serum creatinine level as a renal function safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Urinary red blood cell resultBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in urinary red blood cell result as a urinalysis safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Urinary protein resultBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in urinary protein result as a urinalysis safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Urinary white blood cell resultBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in urinary white blood cell result as a urinalysis safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Urinary glucose resultBaseline; Weeks 12, 24, and 48 were observed. The safety laboratory assessments were Weeks 12, 24, and 48.Change in urinary glucose result as a urinalysis safety laboratory indicator, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Incidence of adverse eventsAdverse events were monitored from randomization through Week 96.Incidence of adverse events during the 48-week treatment period and the post-treatment follow-up period, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Incidence of serious adverse eventsSerious adverse events were monitored from randomization through Week 96.Incidence of serious adverse events during the 48-week treatment period and the post-treatment follow-up period, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Treatment interruption rateTreatment interruption was monitored from randomization through Week 48.Proportion of participants with interruption of the assigned study treatment during the 48-week treatment period, assessed by comparison between the two randomized groups.
Concomitant medication useConcomitant medication use was recorded from randomization through Week 96.Use of concomitant medications during the study period, including medication name, reason for use, dosage form, dose, route, frequency, start date, and end date.

Countries

China

Contacts

CONTACTMei Han, phD
hanmeizoujin@163.com+86 13401131731

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Jul 14, 2026