Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with confirmed or suspected Covid-19 were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine alone, or usual care. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days, assessed on a seven-level ordinal scale. There were no significant differences between groups in the primary outcome.

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. 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. 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. 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. COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Scrub typhus is a life-threatening zoonotic bacterial infection. In this randomized, controlled trial, combination therapy with doxycycline and azithromycin led to better outcomes than either drug alone.

Azithromycin 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. In 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. Between 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). In 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. UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Azithromycin, an antibiotic with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used to treat COVID-19, but evidence from community randomised trials is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin to treat suspected COVID-19 among people in the community who had an increased risk of complications. In this UK-based, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course (PRINCIPLE), we randomly assigned people aged 65 years and older, or 50 years and older with at least one comorbidity, who had been unwell for 14 days or less with suspected COVID-19, to usual care plus azithromycin 500 mg daily for three days, usual care plus other interventions, or usual care alone. The trial had two coprimary endpoints measured within 28 days from randomisation: time to first self-reported recovery, analysed using a Bayesian piecewise exponential, and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Eligible participants with outcome data were included in the primary analysis, and those who received the allocated treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN86534580. The first participant was recruited to PRINCIPLE on April 2, 2020. The azithromycin group enrolled participants between May 22 and Nov 30, 2020, by which time 2265 participants had been randomly assigned, 540 to azithromycin plus usual care, 875 to usual care alone, and 850 to other interventions. 2120 (94%) of 2265 participants provided follow-up data and were included in the Bayesian primary analysis, 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group, 823 in the usual care alone group, and 797 in other intervention groups. 402 (80%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 631 (77%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group reported feeling recovered within 28 days. We found little evidence of a meaningful benefit in the azithromycin plus usual care group in time to first reported recovery versus usual care alone (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0·95 to 1·23), equating to an estimated benefit in median time to first recovery of 0·94 days (95% BCI −0·56 to 2·43). The probability that there was a clinically meaningful benefit of at least 1·5 days in time to recovery was 0·23. 16 (3%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 28 (3%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group were hospitalised (absolute benefit in percentage 0·3%, 95% BCI −1·7 to 2·2). There were no deaths in either study group. Safety outcomes were similar in both groups. Two (1%) of 455 participants in the azothromycin plus usual care group and four (1%) of 668 participants in the usual care alone group reported admission to hospital during the trial, not related to COVID-19. Our findings do not justify the routine use of azithromycin for reducing time to recovery or risk of hospitalisation for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community. These findings have important antibiotic stewardship implications during this pandemic, as inappropriate use of antibiotics leads to increased antimicrobial resistance, and there is evidence that azithromycin use increased during the pandemic in the UK. UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care.

There is no specific antiviral therapy recommended for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In vitro studies indicate that the antiviral effect of chloroquine diphosphate (CQ) requires a high concentration of the drug. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 CQ dosages in patients with severe COVID-19. This parallel, double-masked, randomized, phase IIb clinical trial with 81 adult patients who were hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was conducted from March 23 to April 5, 2020, at a tertiary care facility in Manaus, Brazilian Amazon. Patients were allocated to receive high-dosage CQ (ie, 600 mg CQ twice daily for 10 days) or low-dosage CQ (ie, 450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once daily for 4 days). Primary outcome was reduction in lethality by at least 50% in the high-dosage group compared with the low-dosage group. Data presented here refer primarily to safety and lethality outcomes during treatment on day 13. Secondary end points included participant clinical status, laboratory examinations, and electrocardiogram results. Outcomes will be presented to day 28. Viral respiratory secretion RNA detection was performed on days 0 and 4. Out of a predefined sample size of 440 patients, 81 were enrolled (41 [50.6%] to high-dosage group and 40 [49.4%] to low-dosage group). Enrolled patients had a mean (SD) age of 51.1 (13.9) years, and most (60 [75.3%]) were men. Older age (mean [SD] age, 54.7 [13.7] years vs 47.4 [13.3] years) and more heart disease (5 of 28 [17.9%] vs 0) were seen in the high-dose group. Viral RNA was detected in 31 of 40 (77.5%) and 31 of 41 (75.6%) patients in the low-dosage and high-dosage groups, respectively. Lethality until day 13 was 39.0% in the high-dosage group (16 of 41) and 15.0% in the low-dosage group (6 of 40). The high-dosage group presented more instance of QTc interval greater than 500 milliseconds (7 of 37 [18.9%]) compared with the low-dosage group (4 of 36 [11.1%]). Respiratory secretion at day 4 was negative in only 6 of 27 patients (22.2%). The preliminary findings of this study suggest that the higher CQ dosage should not be recommended for critically ill patients with COVID-19 because of its potential safety hazards, especially when taken concurrently with azithromycin and oseltamivir. These findings cannot be extrapolated to patients with nonsevere COVID-19. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04323527.

Gepotidacin, a first-in-class, bactericidal, triazaacenaphthylene antibacterial that inhibits bacterial DNA replication, was shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of uncomplicated urinary tract infections. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of gepotidacin for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea. EAGLE-1 (NCT04010539) was a phase 3, open-label, sponsor-blinded, multicentre, non-inferiority study evaluating oral gepotidacin (two 3000 mg doses administered 10–12 h apart) compared with 500 mg intramuscular ceftriaxone plus 1 g oral azithromycin for the treatment of gonorrhoea. Eligible participants were aged 12 years and older, had a bodyweight over 45 kg, and had suspected uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea (including mucopurulent discharge), a positive laboratory test for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, or both. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment group, stratified by sex (original urogenital anatomy at birth) and sexual orientation (men who have sex with men [MSM], men who have sex with women [MSW], and female) in combination, and age group (age <18 years, ≥18 to 65 years, or >65 years). The primary efficacy endpoint was microbiological success, defined as culture-confirmed bacterial eradication of N gonorrhoeae from the urogenital body site at test-of-cure (days 4–8). The non-inferiority margin was prespecified at –10%. The primary outcome was assessed in the microbiological intention-to-treat (micro-ITT) population, all participants randomly allocated to a study treatment who received at least one dose of their study treatment and had confirmed ceftriaxone-susceptible N gonorrhoeae isolated from the baseline culture of their urogenital specimen. The safety population comprised all participants who received one or more doses of any study treatment. Between Oct 21, 2019, and Oct 10, 2023, 628 participants were randomly allocated (314 allocated to each treatment group). Overall, 39 (6%) of 628 participants discontinued the study prematurely (20 in the gepotidacin group and 19 in the ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group), with the primary reason being lost to follow-up. The micro-ITT population included 406 participants (202 in the gepotidacin group and 204 in the ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group). Most participants in the micro-ITT population were male (372 [92%] vs 34 [8%] female), and there was a higher percentage of participants who were MSM (290 [71%]) compared with participants who were MSW (82 [20%]). Participants were predominantly White (299 [74%]) or Black or African American (61 [15%]), with 70 (17%) identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Results of the primary analysis of microbiological response at test-of-cure demonstrated microbiological success rates of 92·6% (187 of 202 [95% CI 88·0 to 95·8]) in the gepotidacin group and 91·2% (186 of 204 [86·4 to 94·7]) in the ceftriaxone plus azithromycin group (adjusted treatment difference –0·1% [95% CI –5·6 to 5·5]). Gepotidacin was non-inferior to ceftriaxone plus azithromycin. No bacterial persistence of urogenital N gonorrhoeae was observed at test-of-cure for either group. The gepotidacin group had higher rates of adverse events and drug-related adverse events, mainly due to gastrointestinal adverse events, and almost all were mild or moderate. No treatment-related severe or serious adverse events occurred in either group. Gepotidacin demonstrated non-inferiority to ceftriaxone plus azithromycin for urogenital N gonorrhoeae, with no new safety concerns, offering a novel oral treatment option for uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhoea. GSK and federal funds from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

The use of azithromycin reduces maternal infection in women during unplanned cesarean delivery, but its effect on those with planned vaginal delivery is unknown. Data are needed on whether an intrapartum oral dose of azithromycin would reduce maternal and offspring sepsis or death. In this multicountry, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, we assigned women who were in labor at 28 weeks' gestation or more and who were planning a vaginal delivery to receive a single 2-g oral dose of azithromycin or placebo. The two primary outcomes were a composite of maternal sepsis or death and a composite of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis. During an interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial for maternal benefit. A total of 29,278 women underwent randomization. The incidence of maternal sepsis or death was lower in the azithromycin group than in the placebo group (1.6% vs. 2.4%), with a relative risk of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.79; P<0.001), but the incidence of stillbirth or neonatal death or sepsis was similar (10.5% vs. 10.3%), with a relative risk of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.09; P = 0.56). The difference in the maternal primary outcome appeared to be driven mainly by the incidence of sepsis (1.5% in the azithromycin group and 2.3% in the placebo group), with a relative risk of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77); the incidence of death from any cause was 0.1% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.97). Neonatal sepsis occurred in 9.8% and 9.6% of the infants, respectively (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.10). The incidence of stillbirth was 0.4% in the two groups (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.53); neonatal death within 4 weeks after birth occurred in 1.5% in both groups (relative risk, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.24). Azithromycin was not associated with a higher incidence in adverse events. Among women planning a vaginal delivery, a single oral dose of azithromycin resulted in a significantly lower risk of maternal sepsis or death than placebo but had little effect on newborn sepsis or death. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; A-PLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03871491.).

Background Patients with severe asthma are at increased risk of exacerbations and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). Severe asthma is heterogeneous, encompassing eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic (mainly neutrophilic) phenotypes. Patients with neutropilic airway diseases may benefit from macrolides. Methods We performed a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in subjects with exacerbation-prone severe asthma. Subjects received low-dose azithromycin (n=55) or placebo (n=54) as add-on treatment to combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2 agonists for 6 months. The primary outcome was the rate of severe exacerbations and LRTI requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 26-week treatment phase. Secondary efficacy outcomes included lung function and scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Results The rate of primary endpoints (PEPs) during 6 months was not significantly different between the two treatment groups: 0.75 PEPs (95% CI 0.55 to 1.01) per subject in the azithromycin group versus 0.81 PEPs (95% CI 0.61 to 1.09) in the placebo group (p=0.682). In a predefined subgroup analysis according to the inflammatory phenotype, azithromycin was associated with a significantly lower PEP rate than placebo in subjects with non-eosinophilic severe asthma (blood eosinophilia ≤200/µl): 0.44 PEPs (95% CI 0.25 to 0.78) versus 1.03 PEPs (95% CI 0.72 to 1.48) (p=0.013). Azithromycin significantly improved the AQLQ score but there were no significant between-group differences in the ACQ score or lung function. Azithromycin was well tolerated, but was associated with increased oropharyngeal carriage of macrolide-resistant streptococci. Conclusions Azithromycin did not reduce the rate of severe exacerbations and LRTI in patients with severe asthma. However, the significant reduction in the PEP rate in azithromycin-treated patients with non-eosinophilic severe asthma warrants further study. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00760838.

In this trial involving women who received standard antibiotic prophylaxis for nonelective cesarean section, the risk of infection after surgery was lower with the addition of azithromycin than with placebo. Globally, pregnancy-associated infection is a major cause of maternal death and is the fourth most common cause in the United States. 1 Maternal infection is also associated with a prolonged hospital stay and increased health care costs. 2 , 3 Cesarean delivery is the most common major surgical procedure 4 and is associated with a rate of surgical-site infection (including endometritis and wound infection) that is 5 to 10 times the rate for vaginal delivery. 5 Despite routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis (commonly, a cephalosporin given before skin incision 6 ), infection after cesarean section remains an important concern, particularly among women who undergo nonelective procedures . . .