Dataset Information

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19.

Methods

We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278.

Findings

447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups.

Interpretation

In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19.

Funding

COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

SUBMITTER: Furtado RHM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7836431 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

Furtado Remo H M RHM Berwanger Otavio O Fonseca Henrique A HA Corrêa Thiago D TD Ferraz Leonardo R LR Lapa Maura G MG Zampieri Fernando G FG Veiga Viviane C VC Azevedo Luciano C P LCP Rosa Regis G RG Lopes Renato D RD Avezum Alvaro A Manoel Airton L O ALO Piza Felipe M T FMT Martins Priscilla A PA Lisboa Thiago C TC Pereira Adriano J AJ Olivato Guilherme B GB Dantas Vicente C S VCS Milan Eveline P EP Gebara Otavio C E OCE Amazonas Roberto B RB Oliveira Monalisa B MB Soares Ronaldo V P RVP Moia Diogo D F DDF Piano Luciana P A LPA Castilho Kleber K Momesso Roberta G R A P RGRAP Schettino Guilherme P P GPP Rizzo Luiz Vicente LV Neto Ary Serpa AS Machado Flávia R FR Cavalcanti Alexandre B AB

Lancet (London, England) 20200905 10256

<h4>Background</h4>The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity cri ...[more]

PMID: 32896292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is associated with acute respiratory distress and cytokine release syndrome. The Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduces inflammatory cytokine concentrations in disorders characterised by cytokine dysregulation, including graft-versus-host disease, myelofibrosis, and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. We assessed whether treatment with the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib would be beneficial in patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital.MethodsRUXCOVID was an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of ruxolitinib plus standard of care versus placebo plus standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Patients who were hospitalised but not on mechanical ventilation or in the intensive care unit [ICU] were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral ruxolitinib 5 mg twice per day or placebo for 14 days (14 additional days were allowed if no improvement). The primary endpoint was a composite of death, respiratory failure (invasive ventilation), or ICU care by day 29, analysed by logistic regression including region, treatment, baseline clinical status, age, and sex as covariates. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04362137.FindingsBetween May 4 and Sept 19, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to ruxolitinib (n=287) or placebo (n=145) plus standard of care; the mean age was 56·5 years (SD 13·3), 197 (46%) were female, and 235 (54%) were male. The primary objective was not met: the composite endpoint occurred in 34 (12%) of 284 ruxolitinib-treated patients versus 17 (12%) of 144 placebo-treated patients (odds ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·48-1·73; p=0·77). By day 29, nine (3%) of 286 ruxolitinib-treated patients had died compared with three (2%) of 145 placebo-treated patients; 22 (8%) of 286 ruxolitinib-treated patients had received invasive ventilation compared with ten (7%) of 145 placebo-treated patients; and 30 (11%) of 284 ruxolitinib-treated patients had received ICU care compared with 17 (12%) of 144 placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis, median time to recovery was 1 day faster with ruxolitinib versus placebo (8 days vs 9 days; hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·89-1·36). Adverse events included headache (23 [8%] of 281 on ruxolitinib vs 11 [8%] of 143 on placebo) and diarrhoea (21 [7%] vs 12 [8%]).InterpretationRuxolitinib 5 mg twice per day showed no benefit in the overall study population. A larger sample is required to determine the clinical importance of trends for increased efficacy in patient subgroups.FundingNovartis and Incyte.

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:PurposeChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a dose limiting toxicity posing a major clinical challenge for managing patients receiving specific chemotherapy regimens (e.g., Taxanes). There is a growing body of literature suggesting acupuncture can improve CIPN symptoms. The purpose of the ACUFOCIN trial was to collect preliminary data on the safety, feasibility, acceptability and initial effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for CIPN, comparing use of acupuncture plus standard care (Acupuncture) against standard care alone (Control).MethodAt a tertiary cancer centre, a pragmatic, randomised, parallel group design study was used to investigate the effectiveness of a 10-week course of acupuncture. Participants experiencing CIPN of ≥ Grade II, recording a 'Most Troublesome' CIPN symptom score of ≥3 using the "Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile" (MYMOP 2), were randomised to 'Acupuncture' or 'Control' arms. Clinicians were blinded to allocated groups, however as it was not possible to blind participants, it cannot be guaranteed they did not disclose study allocation within their clinic assessments. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients reporting a ≥ 2-point improvement (success) in their MYMOP2 score at week 10. 100 participants (120 to allow for attrition) were required for a hypothesised improvement in success proportions from 30% to 55% using a primary analysis model with logistic regression adjusted for stratification factors and baseline MYMOP2 scores. Feasibility and acceptability of study design was addressed through percentage return of primary outcome, retention rate and a nested qualitative study.ResultsPrimary MYMOP2 outcome data at week 10 was available for 108/120 randomised participants; this is greater than the 100 participants required to adequately power the study. There were 36/53 (68%) successes in 'Acupuncture' compared to 18/55 (33%) in 'Control'. Beneficial effects were seen in the secondary outcome data, including clinicians' grading of neuropathy, EORTC, QLQ-CIPN20, QLQ-C30 summary scores and patient reported pain scores. There were no serious adverse events reported within the study and only 16 acupuncture associated events, none of which required intervention.ConclusionA 10-week course of acupuncture resulted in measurable improvement in participants symptoms of CIPN. The results warrant further investigation.

Project description:Introduction: Severe lung injury is triggered by both the SARS-CoV-2 infection and the subsequent host-immune response in some COVID-19 patients. Methods: We conducted a randomized, single-center, open-label, phase II trial with the aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylprednisolone pulses and tacrolimus plus standard of care (SoC) vs. SoC alone, in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome was time to clinical stability within 56 days after randomization. Results: From April 1 to May 2, 2020, 55 patients were prospectively included for subsequent randomization; 27 were assigned to the experimental group and 28 to the control group. The experimental treatment was not associated with a difference in time to clinical stability (hazard ratio 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.37]) nor most secondary outcomes. Median methylprednisolone cumulative doses were significantly lower (360 mg [IQR 360-842] vs. 870 mg [IQR 364-1451]; p = 0.007), and administered for a shorter time (median of 4.00 days [3.00-17.5] vs. 18.5 days [3.00-53.2]; p = 0.011) in the experimental group than in the control group. Although not statistically significant, those receiving the experimental therapy showed a numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, especially at day 10 [2 (7.41%) vs. 5 (17.9%); OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.05-2.1); p = 0.282]. The total number of non-serious adverse events was 42 in each the two groups. Those receiving experimental treatment had a numerically higher rate of non-serious infectious adverse events [16 (38%) vs. 10 (24%)] and serious infectious adverse events [7 (35%) vs. 3 (23%)] than those receiving SoC. Conclusions: The combined use of methylprednisolone pulses plus tacrolimus, in addition to the SoC, did not significantly improve the time to clinical stability or other secondary outcomes compared with the SoC alone in severe COVID-19. Although not statistically significant, patients receiving the experimental therapy had numerically lower all-cause mortality than those receiving SoC, supporting recent non-randomized studies with calcineurin inhibitors. It is noteworthy that the present trial had a limited sample size and several other limitations. Therefore, further RCTs should be done to assess the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus to tackle the inflammatory stages of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier [NCT04341038/EudraCT: 2020-001445-39].

Project description:IntroductionVenous leg ulceration (VLU), the most common type of chronic ulcer, can be difficult to heal and is a major cause of morbidity and reduced quality of life. Although compression bandaging is the principal treatment, it is time-consuming and bandage application requires specific training. There is evidence that intervention on superficial venous incompetence can help ulcer healing and recurrence, but this is not accessible to all patients. Hence, new treatments are required to address these chronic wounds. One possible adjuvant treatment for VLU is human decellularised dermis (DCD), a type of skin graft derived from skin from deceased tissue donors. Although DCD has the potential to promote ulcer healing, there is a paucity of data for its use in patients with VLU.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. One hundred and ninety-six patients with VLU will be randomly assigned to receive either the DCD allograft in addition to standard care or standard care alone. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with a healed index ulcer at 12 weeks post-randomisation in each treatment arm. Secondary outcomes include the time to index ulcer healing and the proportion of participants with a healed index ulcer at 12 months. Changes in quality of life scores and cost-effectiveness will also be assessed. All analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. A mixed-effects, logistic regression on the outcome of the proportion of those with the index ulcer healed at 12 weeks will be performed. Secondary outcomes will be assessed using various statistical models appropriate to the distribution and nature of these outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the Bloomsbury Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1271). Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN21541209.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and evaluate a best practice model of general hospital acute medical care for older people with cognitive impairment.DesignRandomised controlled trial, adapted to take account of constraints imposed by a busy acute medical admission system.SettingLarge acute general hospital in the United Kingdom.Participants600 patients aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified as "confused" on admission.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to a specialist medical and mental health unit, designed to deliver best practice care for people with delirium or dementia, or to standard care (acute geriatric or general medical wards). Features of the specialist unit included joint staffing by medical and mental health professionals; enhanced staff training in delirium, dementia, and person centred dementia care; provision of organised purposeful activity; environmental modification to meet the needs of those with cognitive impairment; delirium prevention; and a proactive and inclusive approach to family carers.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomenumber of days spent at home over the 90 days after randomisation.Secondary outcomesstructured non-participant observations to ascertain patients' experiences; satisfaction of family carers with hospital care. When possible, outcome assessment was blind to allocation.ResultsThere was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). Median index hospital stay was 11 versus 11 days, mortality 22% versus 25% (-9% to 4%), readmission 32% versus 35% (-10% to 5%), and new admission to care home 20% versus 28% (-16% to 0) for the specialist unit and standard care groups, respectively. Patients returning home spent a median of 70.5 versus 71.0 days at home (-6.0 to 6.5). Patients on the specialist unit spent significantly more time with positive mood or engagement (79% v 68%, 2% to 20%; P=0.03) and experienced more staff interactions that met emotional and psychological needs (median 4 v 1 per observation; P<0.001). More family carers were satisfied with care (overall 91% v 83%, 2% to 15%; P=0.004), and severe dissatisfaction was reduced (5% v 10%, -10% to 0%; P=0.05).ConclusionsSpecialist care for people with delirium and dementia improved the experience of patients and satisfaction of carers, but there were no convincing benefits in health status or service use. Patients' experience and carers' satisfaction might be more appropriate measures of success for frail older people approaching the end of life.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01136148.

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:BackgroundSeverity of illness in COVID-19 is consistently lower in women. A focus on sex as a biological factor may suggest a potential therapeutic intervention for this disease. We assessed whether adding progesterone to standard of care (SOC) would improve clinical outcomes of hospitalized men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Research questionDoes short-term subcutaneous administration of progesterone safely improve clinical outcome in hypoxemic men hospitalized with COVID-19?Study design and methodsWe conducted a pilot, randomized, open-label, controlled trial of subcutaneous progesterone in men hospitalized with confirmed moderate to severe COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to receive SOC plus progesterone (100 mg subcutaneously twice daily for up to 5 days) or SOC alone. In addition to assessment of safety, the primary outcome was change in clinical status on day 7. Length of hospital stay and number of days on supplemental oxygen were key secondary outcomes.ResultsForty-two patients were enrolled from April 2020 to August 2020; 22 were randomized to the control group and 20 to the progesterone group. Two patients from the progesterone group withdrew from the study before receiving progesterone. There was a 1.5-point overall improvement in median clinical status score on a seven-point ordinal scale from baseline to day 7 in patients in the progesterone group as compared with control subjects (95% CI, 0.0-2.0; P = .024). There were no serious adverse events attributable to progesterone. Patients treated with progesterone required three fewer days of supplemental oxygen (median, 4.5 vs 7.5 days) and were hospitalized for 2.5 fewer days (median, 7.0 vs 9.5 days) as compared with control subjects.InterpretationProgesterone at a dose of 100 mg, twice daily by subcutaneous injection in addition to SOC, may represent a safe and effective approach for treatment in hypoxemic men with moderate to severe COVID-19.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04365127; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Dataset Information

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets