RESUMEN
BackgroundThe role of thromboprophylaxis in the post-acute phase of COVID-19 is uncertain due to conflicting results from randomised controlled trials and observational studies. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of post-hospital apixaban in reducing the rate of death and hospital readmission of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. MethodsHEAL COVID is an adaptive randomised open label multicentre platform trial recruiting participants from National Health Service Hospitals in the United Kingdom. Here we report the preliminary results of apixaban comparison of HEAL-COVID. Participants with a hospital admission related to confirmed COVID-19 and an expected date of discharge in the subsequent five days were randomised to either apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily or standard care (no anticoagulation) for 14 days. The primary outcome was hospital free survival at 12 months obtained through routine data sources. The trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN (15851697) and Clincialtrials.gov (NCT04801940). FindingsBetween 19 May 2021 and 21 November 2022, 402 participants from 109 sites were randomised to apixaban and 399 to standard care. Seven participants withdrew from the apixaban group and one from the standard care group. Analysis was undertaken on an intention-to-treat basis. The apixaban arm was stopped on the recommendation of the oversight committees following an interim analysis due to no indication of benefit. Of the 402 participants randomised to apixaban, 117 experienced death or rehospitalisation during a median follow-up of 344{middle dot}5 days (IQR 125 to 365), and 123 participants receiving standard care experienced death or rehospitalisation during a median follow-up of 349 days (IQR 124 to 365). There was no statistical difference in the rate of death and rehospitalisation (HR: 0{middle dot}96 99%CI 0{middle dot}69-1{middle dot}34; p=0{middle dot}75). Three participants in the apixaban arm experienced clinically significant bleeding during treatment. InterpretationFourteen days of post-hospital anticoagulation with the direct oral anticoagulant apixaban did not reduce the rate of death or rehospitalisation of adults hospitalised with COVID-19. These data do not support the use of prophylactic post-hospital anticoagulation in adults with COVID-19. FundingHEAL-COVID is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research [NIHR133788] and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre [BRC-1215-20014*].
RESUMEN
ObjectivesColchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment, but its effect on time to recovery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether colchicine is effective at reducing time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people in the community. DesignProspective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE). SettingNational trial run remotely from a central trial site and at multiple primary care centres across the United Kingdom. ParticipantsAdults aged [≥]65, or [≥]18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell [≤]14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community. InterventionsParticipants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500{micro}g daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Main outcome measuresThe co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The hypothesis for the time to recovery endpoint is evaluated first, and if superiority is declared on time to recovery, the hypothesis for the second co-primary endpoint of hospitalisation/death is then evaluated. To determine futility, we pre-specified a clinically meaningful benefit in time to first reported recovery as a hazard ratio of 1.2 or larger (equating to approximately 1.5 days benefit in the colchicine arm, assuming 9 days recovery in the usual care arm). ResultsThe trial opened on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to colchicine starting on March 04, 2021 and stopping on May 26, 2021, because the pre-specified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to colchicine (n=156), usual care (n=1145), and other treatments (n=1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.919 [95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.16] and an estimated increase of 1.14 days [-1.86 to 5.21] in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. Results were similar in comparisons with concurrent controls. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 [0.28 to 1.89] and an estimated difference of -0.4% [-2.7% to 2.4]. One serious adverse event occurred in the colchicine group and one in usual care. ConclusionsColchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community. Trial registrationISRCTN86534580.
RESUMEN
BackgroundDysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy of namilumab, a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor inhibitor and infliximab, a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in order to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. MethodsIn this randomised, multi-arm, parallel group, open label, adaptive phase 2 proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST) we recruited hospitalised patients [≥] 16 years with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) [≥] 40mg/L in nine UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated with equal probability to usual care, or usual care plus a single 150mg intravenous dose of namilumab (150mg) or infliximab (5mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified for ward versus ICU. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation in intervention arms compared to control as measured by CRP over time, analysed using Bayesian multi-level models. ISRCTN registry number 40580903. FindingsBetween 15th June 2020 and 18th February 2021 we randomised 146 participants: 54 to usual care, 57 to namilumab and 35 to infliximab. The probabilities that namilumab and infliximab were superior to usual care in reducing CRP over time were 97% and 15% respectively. Consistent effects were seen in ward and ICU patients and aligned with clinical outcomes, such that the probability of discharge (WHO levels 1-3) at day 28 was 47% and 64% for ICU and ward patients on usual care, versus 66% and 77% for patients treated with namilumab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30/55 (54.5%) namilumab patients compared to 145 in 29/54 (53.7%) usual care patients. 102 events occurred in 20/29 (69.0%) infliximab patients versus 112 events in 17/34 (50.0%) usual care patients. InterpretationNamilumab, but not infliximab, demonstrated proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia which was consistent with secondary clinical outcomes. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. FundingMedical Research Council.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-moderate disease are lacking. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospitalisation in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. MethodsThis open-label, randomised superiority clinical trial at 19 centres in the United Kingdom enrolled adults, [≥]18 years, presenting to hospitals with clinically-diagnosed highly-probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with <14 days symptoms, considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomised (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg daily orally for 14 days) or to standard care without macrolides. The primary outcome was the difference in proportion of participants with death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation, assessed according to intention-to-treat (ITT). Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381962, Study closed. Findings298 participants were enrolled from 3rd June 2020 to 29th January 2021. The primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants. The primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (Adjusted OR 0{middle dot}91 [95% CI 0{middle dot}43-1{middle dot}92], p=0{middle dot}80). Rates of respiratory failure, progression to pneumonia, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, including serious cardiovascular events, were not significantly different between groups. InterpretationIn patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospitalisation or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19. FundingNIHR Oxford BRC, University of Oxford and Pfizer Inc. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) with the terms ("azithromycin") AND ("COVID" OR "COVID-19") AND ("clinical trials"), until March 25, 2021, with no language restrictions. We identified 42 studies, among which there were four completed randomised trials of azithromycin (with or without hydroxychloroquine) in hospitalised patients with severe disease, and three completed randomised trials of azithromycin in mild COVID-19 in primary care. The four trials in hospitalised patients randomised 8,988 participants to azithromycin or standard care or hydroxychloroquine and found no evidence of a difference in mortality, duration of hospital stay or peak disease severity. Of the three trials in primary care, these randomised participants with early disease to 3 or 5 days of therapy, of which only one assessed azithromycin as standalone therapy. This large, adaptive platform trial in the UK randomised 540 participants in primary care to 3 days treatment with azithromycin versus 875 to standard care alone and found no meaningful difference in time to first reported recovery, or of rates of hospitalisation (3% versus 3%) and there were no deaths. We did not identify any randomised trials in patients with COVID-19 managed in ambulatory care. Added value of this studyThe ATOMIC2 trial was uniquely-designed to assess azithromycin as a standalone therapy in those with mild-moderately COVID-19 presenting to emergency care, but assessed as appropriate for initial ambulatory management without hospital admission. ATOMIC2 also uniquely assessed high-dose, long-duration treatment to investigate the efficacy of putative anti-inflammatory effects. We found that azithromycin 500 mg daily for 14 days did not reduce the proportion of participants who died or required hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings, taken together with existing data, suggest there is no evidence that azithromycin reduces hospitalisation, respiratory failure or death compared with standard care, either in early disease in the community, or those hospitalised with severe disease, or in those with moderate disease managed on an ambulatory pathway.
RESUMEN
IntroductionSevere SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a dysregulated immune response. Inflammatory monocytes and macrophages are crucial, promoting injurious, pro-inflammatory sequelae. Immunomodulation is, therefore, an attractive therapeutic strategy and we sought to test licensed and novel candidate drugs. Methods and analysisThe CATALYST trial is a multi-arm, open-label, multi-centre, phase II platform trial designed to identify candidate novel treatments to improve outcomes of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care. Treatments with evidence of biomarker improvements will be put forward for larger-scale testing by current national phase III platform trials. Hospitalised patients >16 years with a clinical picture strongly suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (confirmed by chest X-ray or CT scan, with or without a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay) and a C-Reactive Protein (CRP) [≥]40 mg/L are eligible. The primary outcome measure is CRP, measured serially from admission to day 14, hospital discharge or death. Secondary outcomes include the WHO Clinical Progression Improvement Scale as a principal efficacy assessment. Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the East Midlands - Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee (20/EM/0115) and given Urgent Public Health status; initial approval was received on 05-May-2020, current protocol version (v6.0) approval on 12-Oct-2020. The MHRA also approved all protocol versions. The results of this trial will be disseminated through national and international presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration numberEudraCT Number: 2020-001684-89 ISRCTN Number: 40580903 Strengths and limitations of this trialO_LICATALYST will provide a rapid readout on the safety and proof-of-concept of candidate novel treatments C_LIO_LICATALYST will enable phase III trial resources to be focussed and allocated for agents with a high likelihood of success C_LIO_LICATALYST uses Bayesian multi-level models to allow for nesting of repeated measures data, with factors for each individual patient and treatment arm, and allowing for non-linear responses C_LIO_LICATALYST is not designed to provide a definitive signal on clinical outcomes C_LI
