Dataset Information

A multi-centre open-label two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus usual care in ambulatory COVID-19: study protocol for the ATOMIC2 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Azithromycin is an orally active synthetic macrolide antibiotic with a wide range of anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. It is a safe, inexpensive, generic licenced drug available worldwide and manufactured to scale and is a potential candidate therapy for pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Azithromycin was widely used to treat severe SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, but to date, no randomised data are available in any coronavirus infections. Other ongoing trials are exploring short courses of azithromycin either in early disease, within the first 7 days of symptoms, when azithromycin's antiviral properties may be important, or late in disease when anti-bacterial properties may reduce the risk of secondary bacterial infection. However, the molecule's anti-inflammatory properties, including suppression of pulmonary macrophage-derived pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukins-1β, -6, -8, and -18 and cytokines G-CSF and GM-CSF may provide a distinct therapeutic benefit if given in as a prolonged course during the period of progression from moderate to severe disease.

Methods

ATOMIC2 is a phase II/III, multi-centre, prospective, open-label, two-arm randomised superiority clinical trial of azithromycin versus standard care for adults presenting to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms who are not admitted at initial presentation. We will enrol adults, ≥ 18 years of age assessed in acute hospitals in the UK with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 infection where management on an ambulatory care pathway is deemed appropriate. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or to azithromycin 500 mg orally daily for 14 days with telephone follow-up at days 14 and 28. The primary objective is to compare the proportion with either death or respiratory failure requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation over 28 days from randomisation. Secondary objectives include mortality/respiratory failure in those with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis; all-cause mortality; progression to pneumonia; progression to severe pneumonia; peak severity of illness and mechanistic analysis of blood and nasal biomarkers.

Discussion

This trial will determine the clinical utility of azithromycin in patients with moderately severe, clinically diagnosed COVID-19 and could be rapidly applicable worldwide.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04381962 . Registered on 11 May 2020. EudraCT identifier 2020-001740-26 . Opened for accrual on 29 May 2020.

SUBMITTER: Hinks TSC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7429453 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16-55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659.FindingsOf 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0-3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0-8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1-3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging.InterpretationAmbulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundCardioembolism in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is a preventable cause of transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or ischaemic stroke; however, due to its transient nature, a short-duration Holter monitor may miss a significant proportion of events.MethodsWe conducted an open-label randomised controlled trial of cardiac monitoring after a TIA or ischaemic stroke comparing a 14-day ECG monitoring patch (Zio® Patch, iRhythm Technologies) with short-duration Holter monitoring for the detection of PAF. The primary outcome was the detection of one or more episodes of ECG-documented PAF lasting at least 30 s within 90 days in each of the study arms. A budget impact analysis from the healthcare perspective was performed.ResultsFrom February 2016 through February 2017, 43 (76.8%) of the 56 patients assigned to the patch-based monitoring group and 47 (78.3%) of the 60 patients assigned to short-duration Holter monitoring group had successful monitor placement with 90 days of follow-up. Of the 26 protocol failures between the two groups, 23 (88.5%) were due to patient refusal for outpatient short-duration ECG monitor placement, whilst only 1 (3.8%) was due unsuccessful ZioPatch placement. The rate of detection of PAF at 90 days was 16.3% in the patch-based monitoring group (seven patients) compared to 2.1% in the short-duration Holter monitoring group (1 patient), with an odds ratio of 8.9 (95% CI 1.1-76.0; P = 0.026). An economic model demonstrated that implementation of the Zio Patch service would result in 10.8 more strokes avoided per year compared to current practice with Holter monitoring with an associated yearly saving in direct medical costs of £113,630, increasing to £162,491 over 5 years.ConclusionsEarly, prolonged, patch-based monitoring after an index stroke or TIA is superior to short-duration Holter monitoring in the detection of PAF and likely cost-effective for preventing recurrent strokes. Trial registration http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 50253271. Registered 21 January 2016.

Project description:BackgroundAzithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.FindingsBetween April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87-1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98-1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87-1·03; p=0·24).InterpretationIn patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed.Findings298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationIn patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Project description:BackgroundBecause treatment with third-generation cephalosporins is associated with slow clinical improvement and high relapse burden for enteric fever, whereas the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin is associated with rapid fever clearance and low relapse burden, we postulated that gatifloxacin would be superior to the cephalosporin ceftriaxone in treating enteric fever.MethodsWe did an open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial at two hospitals in the Kathmandu valley, Nepal. Eligible participants were children (aged 2-13 years) and adult (aged 14-45 years) with criteria for suspected enteric fever (body temperature ≥38·0°C for ≥4 days without a focus of infection). We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) without stratification to 7 days of either oral gatifloxacin (10 mg/kg per day) or intravenous ceftriaxone (60 mg/kg up to 2 g per day for patients aged 2-13 years, or 2 g per day for patients aged ≥14 years). The randomisation list was computer-generated using blocks of four and six. The primary outcome was a composite of treatment failure, defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following: fever clearance time of more than 7 days after treatment initiation; the need for rescue treatment on day 8; microbiological failure (ie, blood cultures positive for Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi, or Paratyphi A, B, or C) on day 8; or relapse or disease-related complications within 28 days of treatment initiation. We did the analyses in the modified intention-to-treat population, and subpopulations with either confirmed blood-culture positivity, or blood-culture negativity. The trial was powered to detect an increase of 20% in the risk of failure. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421693, and is now closed.FindingsBetween Sept 18, 2011, and July 14, 2014, we screened 725 patients for eligibility. On July 14, 2014, the trial was stopped early by the data safety and monitoring board because S Typhi strains with high-level resistance to ciprofloxacin and gatifloxacin had emerged. At this point, 239 were in the modified intention-to-treat population (120 assigned to gatifloxacin, 119 to ceftriaxone). 18 (15%) patients who received gatifloxacin had treatment failure, compared with 19 (16%) who received ceftriaxone (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·55-1·98]; p=0·91). In the culture-confirmed population, 16 (26%) of 62 patients who received gatifloxacin failed treatment, compared with four (7%) of 54 who received ceftriaxone (HR 0·24 [95% CI 0·08-0·73]; p=0·01). Treatment failure was associated with the emergence of S Typhi exhibiting resistance against fluoroquinolones, requiring the trial to be stopped. By contrast, in patients with a negative blood culture, only two (3%) of 58 who received gatifloxacin failed treatment versus 15 (23%) of 65 who received ceftriaxone (HR 7·50 [95% CI 1·71-32·80]; p=0·01). A similar number of non-serious adverse events occurred in each treatment group, and no serious events were reported.InterpretationOur results suggest that fluoroquinolones should no longer be used for treatment of enteric fever in Nepal. Additionally, under our study conditions, ceftriaxone was suboptimum in a high proportion of patients with culture-negative enteric fever. Since antimicrobials, specifically fluoroquinolones, are one of the only routinely used control measures for enteric fever, the assessment of novel diagnostics, new treatment options, and use of existing vaccines and development of next-generation vaccines are now a high priority.FundingWellcome Trust and Li Ka Shing Foundation.