Abstract
Background The 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.
Methods This 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.
Findings 298 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 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). Rates of respiratory failure, progression to pneumonia, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, including serious cardiovascular events, were not significantly different between groups.
Interpretation In 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.
Funding NIHR Oxford BRC, University of Oxford and Pfizer Inc.
Evidence before this study We 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 study The 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 evidence Our 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.
Competing Interest Statement
TSCH has received grants from Pfizer Inc., grants from University of Oxford, grants from the Wellcome Trust, grants from The Guardians of the Beit Fellowship, and grants from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from TEVA, personal fees from Peer Voice outside the submitted work. MJ has received grants from the University of Oxford and NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. DR has undertaken paid consultancy for GSK outside the submitted work. IDP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Aerocrine, Almirall, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Regeneron, Teva, Chiesi, Sanofi, Circassia, Knopp, and grants from NIHR outside the submitted work. JU has received honoraria for preparation of educational materials and has served on an advisory board for Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare outside of the submitted work. LC, RK, AW, JLC, VSB, JB, SJD, JM, PM, RG, TB, GJ, FC, DC, SE, DL and SM declare they have no competing interests.
Clinical Trial
NCT04381962
Clinical Protocols
https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-020-04593-8
Funding Statement
This research is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), by the University of Oxford and by an independent research grant from Pfizer Inc. TSCH is supported by a fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (211050/Z/18/z). This research is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands through funding to DSL. The funders played no role in the study design.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The trial protocol was reviewed and approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and an independent ethical committee (London - Brent Research Ethics Committee, Research Ethics Committee reference number 20/HRA/2105).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data analysed and presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, providing the request meets local ethical and research governance criteria after publication. Patient-level data will be anonymised and study documents will be redacted to protect the privacy of trial participants. The study protocol is provided in the appendix.
