Abstract
Objectives Colchicine 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.
Design Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses (PRINCIPLE).
Setting National trial run remotely from a central trial site and at multiple primary care centres across the United Kingdom.
Participants Adults aged ≥65, or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community.
Interventions Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions.
Main outcome measures The 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).
Results The 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.
Conclusions Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.
Trial registration ISRCTN86534580.
Competing Interest Statement
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: Drs. Saville, Berry, Detry, Fitzgerald and Saunders report grants from The University of Oxford, for the Sponsor's grant from the UK NIHR, for statistical design and analyses for the PRINCIPLE trial during the conduct of the study. Prof de Lusignan is Director of the Oxford-RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre and reports that through his University he has had grants outside the submitted work from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, Seqirus and Takeda for vaccine related research, and membership of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Sanofi and Seqirus. Dr. Andersson reports grants from Prenetics and Pfizer and personal fees from Prenetics, outside the submitted work. Profs Hobbs and Butler reports grants from UKRI, during the conduct of the study. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.
Clinical Trial
ISRCTN86534580
Clinical Protocols
https://www.principletrial.org
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/6/e046799
Funding Statement
The PRINCIPLE trial is funded by a grant to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research as part of the UK Government rapid research response fund. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
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 study conformed to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/SC/0158).
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
Footnotes
↵¶ Writing committee listed below on behalf of the PRINCIPLE Trial Collaborative Group. PRINCIPLE trial collaborators are listed in the appendix
Data Availability
Data can be shared with qualifying researchers who submit a proposal with a valuable research question as assessed by a committee formed from the TMG including senior statistical and clinical representation. A contract should be signed.
