Azithromycin for treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gyselinck I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801156 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Azithromycin for treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a randomised, multicentre, open-label clinical trial (DAWn-AZITHRO).
Gyselinck Iwein I Liesenborghs Laurens L Belmans Ann A Engelen Matthias M MM Betrains Albrecht A Van Thillo Quentin Q Nguyen Pham Anh Hong PAH Goeminne Pieter P Soenen Ann-Catherine AC De Maeyer Nikolaas N Pilette Charles C Papleux Emmanuelle E Vanderhelst Eef E Derweduwen Aurélie A Alexander Patrick P Bouckaert Bernard B Martinot Jean-Benoît JB Decoster Lynn L Vandeurzen Kurt K Schildermans Rob R Verhamme Peter P Janssens Wim W Vos Robin R
ERJ open research 20220101 1
<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Azithromycin was rapidly adopted as a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) early in the pandemic. We aimed to evaluate its efficacy in patients hospitalised for COVID-19.<h4>Methods</h4>In a series of randomised, open-label, phase 2 proof-of-concept, multicentre clinical trials (Direct Antivirals Working against the novel coronavirus (DAWn)), several treatments were compared with standard of care. In 15 Belgian hospitals, patients hospita ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe complement pathway is a potential target for the treatment of severe COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of ravulizumab, a terminal complement C5 inhibitor, in patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (ALXN1210-COV-305) enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 31 hospitals in France, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 that required hospitalisation and either invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, with severe pneumonia, acute lung injury, or acute respiratory distress syndrome confirmed by CT scan or x-ray. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) to receive intravenous ravulizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone using a web-based interactive response system. Randomisation was in permuted blocks of six with stratification by intubation status. Bodyweight-based intravenous doses of ravulizumab were administered on days 1, 5, 10, and 15. The primary efficacy endpoint was survival based on all-cause mortality at day 29 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety endpoints were analysed in all randomly assigned patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group who received at least one dose of ravulizumab, and in all randomly assigned patients in the BSC group. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04369469, and was terminated at interim analysis due to futility.FindingsBetween May 10, 2020, and Jan 13, 2021, 202 patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to ravulizumab plus BSC or BSC. 201 patients were included in the ITT population (135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 66 in the BSC group). The ravulizumab plus BSC group comprised 96 (71%) men and 39 (29%) women with a mean age of 63·2 years (SD 13·23); the BSC group comprised 43 (65%) men and 23 (35%) women with a mean age of 63·5 years (12·40). Most patients (113 [84%] of 135 in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 53 [80%] of 66 in the BSC group) were on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline. Overall survival estimates based on multiple imputation were 58% for patients receiving ravulizumab plus BSC and 60% for patients receiving BSC (Mantel-Haenszel analysis: risk difference -0·0205; 95% CI -0·1703 to 0·1293; one-sided p=0·61). In the safety population, 113 (89%) of 127 patients in the ravulizumab plus BSC group and 56 (84%) of 67 in the BSC group had a treatment-emergent adverse event. Of these events, infections and infestations (73 [57%] vs 24 [36%] patients) and vascular disorders (39 [31%] vs 12 [18%]) were observed more frequently in the ravulizumab plus BSC group than in the BSC group. Five patients had serious adverse events considered to be related to ravulizumab. These events were bacteraemia, thrombocytopenia, oesophageal haemorrhage, cryptococcal pneumonia, and pyrexia (in one patient each).InterpretationAddition of ravulizumab to BSC did not improve survival or other secondary outcomes. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile of ravulizumab in its approved indications. Despite the lack of efficacy, the study adds value for future research into complement therapeutics in critical illnesses by showing that C5 inhibition can be accomplished in severely ill patients.FundingAlexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease.
| S-EPMC10027334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. This study investigates the effect CP on clinical improvement in these patients.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated, randomised, parallel arm, open-label, superiority clinical trial. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to two infusions of CP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement 28 days after enrolment.ResultsA total of 160 (80 in each arm) patients (66.3% were critically ill and 33.7%, severe) completed the trial. The median age was 60.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 48-68), 58.1% were men and the median time from symptom onset to randomisation was 10 days (IQR, 8-12). Neutralising antibodies titres >1:80 were present in 133 (83.1%) patients at baseline. The proportion of patients with clinical improvement on day 28 was 61.3% in the CP+SOC and 65.0% in the SOC group (difference, -3.7%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], -18.8%-11.3%). The results were similar in the subgroups of severe and critically ill. There was no significant difference between CP+SOC and SOC groups in prespecified secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality, days alive and free of respiratory support and duration of invasive ventilatory support. Inflammatory and other laboratorial markers values on days 3, 7 and 14 were similar between groups.ConclusionsCP+SOC did not result in a higher proportion of clinical improvement on at day 28 in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 compared to SOC alone.
| S-EPMC8287736 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of inhaled ciclesonide in reducing the duration of oxygen therapy (an indicator of time to clinical improvement) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.Setting9 hospitals (3 academic hospitals and 6 non-academic hospitals) in Sweden between 1 June 2020 and 17 May 2021.ParticipantsAdults hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving oxygen therapy.InterventionInhaled ciclesonide 320 µg two times a day for 14 days versus standard care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was duration of oxygen therapy, an indicator of time to clinical improvement. Key secondary outcome was a composite of invasive mechanical ventilation/death.ResultsData from 98 participants were analysed (48 receiving ciclesonide and 50 receiving standard care; median (IQR) age, 59.5 (49-67) years; 67 (68%) men). Median (IQR) duration of oxygen therapy was 5.5 (3-9) days in the ciclesonide group and 4 (2-7) days in the standard care group (HR for termination of oxygen therapy 0.73 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.11), with the upper 95% CI being compatible with a 10% relative reduction in oxygen therapy duration, corresponding to a <1 day absolute reduction in a post-hoc calculation). Three participants in each group died/received invasive mechanical ventilation (HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.15 to 5.32)). The trial was discontinued early due to slow enrolment.ConclusionsIn patients hospitalised with COVID-19 receiving oxygen therapy, this trial ruled out, with 0.95 confidence, a treatment effect of ciclesonide corresponding to more than a 1 day reduction in duration of oxygen therapy. Ciclesonide is unlikely to improve this outcome meaningfully.Trial registration numberNCT04381364.
| S-EPMC9950582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As no specific pharmacological treatment has been validated for use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin (AZM) in these patients at a referral centre in Iran. An open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted on patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. A total of 55 patients in the control group receiving hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) were compared with 56 patients in the case group who in addition to the same regimen also received AZM. Patients with prior cardiac disease were excluded from the study. Furthermore, patients from the case group were assessed for cardiac arrythmia risk based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) risk assessment for use of AZM and HCQ. The main outcome measures were vital signs, SpO2 levels, duration of hospitalisation, need for and length of intensive care unit admission, mortality rate and results of 30-day follow-up after discharge. Initially, there was no significant difference between the general conditions and vital signs of the two groups. The SpO2 levels at discharge were significantly higher, the respiratory rate was lower and the duration of admission was shorter in the case group. There was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups. Patients who received AZM in addition to HCQ and LPV/r had a better general condition. HCQ+AZM combination may be beneficial for individuals who are known to have a very low underlying risk for cardiac arrhythmia based on the ACC criteria.
| S-EPMC7445147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has overwhelmed health services globally. Oral antiviral therapies are licensed worldwide, but indications and efficacy rates vary. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral favipiravir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of oral favipiravir in adult patients who were newly admitted to hospital with proven or suspected COVID-19 across five sites in the UK (n=2), Brazil (n=2) and Mexico (n=1). Using a permuted block design, eligible and consenting participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral favipiravir (1800 mg twice daily for 1 day; 800 mg twice daily for 9 days) plus standard care, or standard care alone. All caregivers and patients were aware of allocation and those analysing data were aware of the treatment groups. The prespecified primary outcome was the time from randomisation to recovery, censored at 28 days, which was assessed using an intention-to-treat approach. Post-hoc analyses were used to assess the efficacy of favipiravir in patients aged younger than 60 years, and in patients aged 60 years and older. The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04373733.FindingsBetween May 5, 2020 and May 26, 2021, we assessed 503 patients for eligibility, of whom 499 were randomly assigned to favipiravir and standard care (n=251) or standard care alone (n=248). There was no significant difference between those who received favipiravir and standard care, relative to those who received standard care alone in time to recovery in the overall study population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06 [95% CI 0·89-1·27]; n=499; p=0·52). Post-hoc analyses showed a faster rate of recovery in patients younger than 60 years who received favipiravir and standard care versus those who had standard care alone (HR 1·35 [1·06-1·72]; n=247; p=0·01). 36 serious adverse events were observed in 27 (11%) of 251 patients administered favipiravir and standard care, and 33 events were observed in 27 (11%) of 248 patients receiving standard care alone, with infectious, respiratory, and cardiovascular events being the most numerous. There was no significant between-group difference in serious adverse events per patient (p=0·87).InterpretationFavipiravir does not improve clinical outcomes in all patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, however, patients younger than 60 years might have a beneficial clinical response. The indiscriminate use of favipiravir globally should be cautioned, and further high-quality studies of antiviral agents, and their potential treatment combinations, are warranted in COVID-19.FundingLifeArc and CW+.
| S-EPMC9891737 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7884931 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8270523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with COVID-19 pneumonia can have increased inflammation and elevated cytokines, including interleukin (IL)-6, which might be deleterious. Thus, sarilumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, might improve the outcome of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsWe did a multicentric, open-label, Bayesian randomised, adaptive, phase 2/3 clinical trial, nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, to test a superiority hypothesis. Patients 18 years or older hospitalised with COVID-19 in six French centres, requiring at least 3L/min of oxygen but without ventilation assistance and a WHO Clinical Progression Scale [CPS] score of 5 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based system, according to a randomisation list stratified on centre and with blocks randomly selected among 2 and 4, to receive usual care plus 400 mg of sarilumab intravenously on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (sarilumab group) or usual care alone (usual care group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with WHO-CPS scores greater than 5 on the 10-point scale on day 4 and survival without invasive or non-invasive ventilation at day 14. This completed trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324073.Findings165 patients were recruited from March 27 to April 6, 2020, and 148 patients were randomised (68 patients to the sarilumab group and 80 to the usual care group) and followed up for 90 days. Median age was 61·7 years [IQR 53·0-71·1] in the sarilumab group and 62·8 years [56·0-71·7] in the usual care group. In the sarilumab group 49 (72%) of 68 were men and in the usual care group 59 (78%) of 76 were men. Four patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. 18 (26%) of 68 patients in the sarilumab group had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 versus 20 (26%) of 76 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference 0·2%; 90% credible interval [CrI] -11·7 to 12·2), with a posterior probability of absolute risk difference greater than 0 of 48·9%. At day 14, 25 (37%) patients in the sarilumab and 26 (34%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, (median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 1·10; 90% CrI 0·69-1·74) with a posterior probability HR greater than 1 of 37·4%. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (40%) patients in the sarilumab group and 28 (37%) patients in the usual care group (p=0·73).InterpretationSarilumab treatment did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of sarilumab on long-term survival.FundingAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.
| S-EPMC8598187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCombining the antibiotic azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine induces airway immunomodulatory effects, with the latter also having in vitro antiviral properties. This may improve outcomes in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPlacebo-controlled double-blind randomised multicentre trial. Patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to hospital for ≤48 h (not intensive care) with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse transcription PCR test were recruited. The intervention was 500 mg daily azithromycin for 3 days followed by 250 mg daily azithromycin for 12 days combined with 200 mg twice-daily hydroxychloroquine for all 15 days. The control group received placebo/placebo. The primary outcome was days alive and discharged from hospital within 14 days (DAOH14).ResultsAfter randomisation of 117 patients, at the first planned interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment due to futility, based on pre-specified criteria. Consequently, the trial was terminated on 1 February 2021. 61 patients received the combined intervention and 56 patients received placebo. In the intervention group, patients had a median (interquartile range) 9.0 (3-11) DAOH14 versus 9.0 (7-10) DAOH14 in the placebo group (p=0.90). The primary safety outcome, death from all causes on day 30, occurred for one patient in the intervention group versus two patients receiving placebo (p=0.52), and readmittance or death within 30 days occurred for nine patients in the intervention group versus six patients receiving placebo (p=0.57).ConclusionsThe combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine did not improve survival or length of hospitalisation in patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8186006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodsThe ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www.Clinicaltrialsgov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.FindingsBetween Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug.InterpretationAmong patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death.FundingCanadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation.TranslationsFor the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
| S-EPMC9635892 | biostudies-literature