[Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of Nocardia rubra cell wall skeleton immunotherapy for cervical high-risk HPV persistent infection].

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Nocardia rubra cell wall skeleton (Nr-CWS) in the treatment of persistent cervical high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) infection. Methods: A randomized, double blind, multi-center trial was conducted. A total of 688 patients with clinically and pathologically confirmed HR-HPV infection of the cervix diagnosed in 13 hispital nationwide were recruited and divided into: (1) patients with simple HR-HPV infection lasting for 12 months or more; (2) patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) Ⅰ and HR-HPV infection lasting for 12 months or more; (3) patients with the same HR-HPV subtype with no CINⅡ and more lesions after treatment with CINⅡ or CIN Ⅲ (CINⅡ/CIN Ⅲ). All participants were randomly divided into the test group and the control group at a ratio of 2∶1. The test group was locally treated with Nr-CWS freeze-dried powder and the control group was treated with freeze-dried powder without Nr-CWS. The efficacy and negative conversion rate of various subtypes of HR-HPV were evaluated at 1, 4, 8, and 12 months after treatment. The safety indicators of initial diagnosis and treatment were observed. Results: (1) This study included 555 patients with HR-HPV infection in the cervix (included 368 in the test group and 187 in the control group), with an age of (44.1±10.0) years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups of subjects, including age, proportion of Han people, weight, composition of HR-HPV subtypes, and proportion of each subgroup, were compared with no statistically significant differences (all P>0.05). (2) After 12 months of treatment, the effective rates of the test group and the control group were 91.0% (335/368) and 44.9% (84/187), respectively. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (χ²=142.520, P<0.001). After 12 months of treatment, the negative conversion rates of HPV 16, 18, 52, and 58 infection in the test group were 79.2% (84/106), 73.3% (22/30), 83.1% (54/65), and 77.4% (48/62), respectively. The control group were 21.6% (11/51), 1/9, 35.1% (13/37), and 20.0% (8/40), respectively. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (all P<0.001). (3) There were no statistically significant differences in vital signs (body weight, body temperature, respiration, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, etc.) and laboratory routine indicators (blood cell analysis, urine routine examination) between the test group and the control group before treatment and at 1, 4, 8, and 12 months after treatment (all P>0.05); there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions related to the investigational drug between the two groups of subjects [8.7% (32/368) vs 8.0% (15/187), respectively; χ²=0.073, P=0.787]. Conclusion: External use of Nr-CWS has good efficacy and safety in the treatment of high-risk HPV persistent infection in the cervix.