A pilot randomized controlled trial of major ozone autohemotherapy for patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19
He Y, Liu X, Zha S, et al. International Immunopharmacology, 2024.
- Study type
- Randomized controlled trial
- People studied
- 73 people
- Population
- Patients with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19
- Published
- 2024, International Immunopharmacology
- Identifiers
- PMID 39018686, DOI 10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112673
What the authors reported
In a pilot RCT, 35 patients given major ozone autohemotherapy plus conventional therapy had a higher symptom-score response rate (71%) than 38 given conventional therapy alone (45%), with better walk distance and lung function measures.
What limits this result
The authors describe it as a pilot needing validation; tests major autohemotherapy, not EBO2, and the abstract does not describe blinding of outcome assessment.
Other ozone methods, such as major autohemotherapy, that clinics cite in support of EBO2. A result for one method does not transfer automatically to another. One study rarely settles a medical question; our guides weigh each paper against the rest of the evidence.
How the study was done
- Design
- Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial
This prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial assessed the therapeutic effects of major ozone autohemotherapy (O3-MAH)
- Setting
- Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430060, PR China
- Read from
- Read from the abstract only; where this page says nothing about an item, the abstract does not report it. Read on September 28, 2026.
Source: Abstract on PubMed
Study arms
| Group | Participants | What they received |
|---|---|---|
| O3-MAH plus conventional therapy | 35 | Major ozone autohemotherapy (O3-MAH) plus conventional therapy |
| Conventional therapy alone | 38 | Conventional therapy alone |
Source: Abstract on PubMed
What it measured
- Response, defined as a 50 % or greater reduction in symptom score
- O3-MAH plus conventional therapy: 25 of 35 patients (71 %); conventional treatment alone: 17/38 patients (45 %); P = 0.0325
- Symptom scores, tidal volume, predicted 6MWD, coagulation and inflammatory indicators
- Significant improvements in the O3-MAH group compared with the conventional treatment group: symptom scores P = 0.0478, tidal volume P = 0.0374, predicted 6MWD P = 0.0032; coagulation and inflammatory indicators also noted (no P value in the abstract)
- Change within each group after the interventions
- Both groups improved in various parameters; efficacy was greater in the O3-MAH group than the conventional treatment group
- Response by baseline CRP level
- O3-MAH was more likely to be effective in patients with elevated CRP levels
- Cellular immunity
- O3-MAH markedly improved cellular immunity, and the improvement became more pronounced with extended treatment duration
Source: Abstract on PubMed
Funding and conflicts
Funder listed on Europe PMC: National Natural Science Foundation of China
Source: Abstract on Europe PMC
Where we cite this study
Does EBO2 (EBOO) Work? The Evidence, Study by Study
Every study in our EBO2 (EBOO) library in one place: design, size, what was measured and found, its limits, and a check for any study a clinic cites.
EBO2 (EBOO) for Long COVID: What Clinics Claim and What Has Been Studied
What clinics claim about EBO2 (EBOO) for long COVID, the post-COVID ozone studies and their limits, what the FTC and FDA said, and what CDC calls care.