Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial

Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view

BACKGROUND

Rapid identification of effective treatments for use in the community during a pandemic is vital for the well-being of individuals and the sustainability of healthcare systems and society. Furthermore, identifying treatments that do not work reduces research wastage, spares people unnecessary side effects, rationalises the cost of purchasing and stockpiling medication, and reduces inappropriate medication use. Nevertheless, only a small minority of therapeutic trials for SARS-CoV-2 infections have been in primary care: most opened too late, struggled to recruit, and few produced actionable results. Participation in research is often limited by where one lives or receives health care, and trial participants may not represent those for whom the treatments are intended.

INNOVATIVE TRIALS

The ALIC4E, PRINCIPLE and the ongoing PANORAMIC trial have randomised over 40,500 people with COVID-19. This personal view describes how these trials have innovated in: trial design (by using novel adaptive platform designs); trial delivery (by complementing traditional site-based recruitment ('the patient comes to the research') with mechanisms to enable sick, infectious people to participate without having to leave home ('taking research to the people'), and by addressing the 'inverse research participation law,' which highlights disproportionate barriers faced by those who have the most to contribute, and benefit from, research, and; in transforming the evidence base by evaluating nine medicines to support guidelines and care decisions world-wide for COVID-19 and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

CONCLUSION

The PRINCIPLE and PANORAMIC trials represent models of innovation and inclusivity, and exemplify the potential of primary care to lead the way in addressing pressing global health challenges.

COVID-19 drug discovery and treatment options

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused substantial morbidity and mortality, and serious social and economic disruptions worldwide. Unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated older individuals with underlying diseases are especially prone to severe disease. In patients with non-fatal disease, long COVID affecting multiple body systems may persist for months. Unlike SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, which have either been mitigated or remained geographically restricted, SARS-CoV-2 has disseminated globally and is likely to continue circulating in humans with possible emergence of new variants that may render vaccines less effective. Thus, safe, effective and readily available COVID-19 therapeutics are urgently needed. In this Review, we summarize the major drug discovery approaches, preclinical antiviral evaluation models, representative virus-targeting and host-targeting therapeutic options, and key therapeutics currently in clinical use for COVID-19. Preparedness against future coronavirus pandemics relies not only on effective vaccines but also on broad-spectrum antivirals targeting conserved viral components or universal host targets, and new therapeutics that can precisely modulate the immune response during infection.

Lessons we learned during the past four challenging years in the COVID-19 era: pharmacotherapy, long COVID complications, and vaccine development

About four years have passed since the detection of the first cases of COVID-19 in China. During this lethal pandemic, millions of people have lost their lives around the world. Since the first waves of COVID-19 infection, various pharmacotherapeutic agents have been examined in the management of COVID-19. Despite all these efforts in pharmacotherapy, drug repurposing, and design and development of new drugs, multiple organ involvement and various complications occurred during COVID-19. Some of these complications became chronic and long-lasting which led to the "long COVID" syndrome appearance. Therefore, the best way to eradicate this pandemic is prophylaxis through mass vaccination. In this regard, various vaccine platforms including inactivated vaccines, nucleic acid-based vaccines (mRNA and DNA vaccines), adenovirus-vectored vaccines, and protein-based subunit vaccines have been designed and developed to prevent or reduce COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates. In this focused review, at first, the most commonly reported clinical presentations of COVID-19 during these four years have been summarized. In addition, different therapeutic regimens and their latest status in COVID-19 management have been listed. Furthermore, the "long COVID" and related signs, symptoms, and complications have been mentioned. At the end, the effectiveness of available COVID-19 vaccines with different platforms against early SARS-CoV-2 variants and currently circulating variants of interest (VOI) and the necessity of booster vaccine shots have been summarized and discussed in more detail.

Colchicine for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.

RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I2=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I2=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I2=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I2=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022369850.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials.

METHODS

In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 μg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted.

FUNDING

UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations.

METHODS

Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity.

RESULTS

Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.

The Efficacy of Colchicine as an Adjunct Therapy in Non-hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic potential of oral colchicine administration may help combat COVID-19 infection due to reduced disease severity and mortality risk.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized trial aimed to assess the effect of colchicine treatment on the inflammatory and hematologic markers as well as clinical features in non-hospitalized patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 disease.

METHODS

In the present placebo-controlled randomized trial, 80 non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients were enrolled and followed for 14 days. Subjects randomly received oral colchicine or placebo tablets once a day for two weeks. The fever and cough clinical signs, as well as Creactive protein (CRP) and lymphopenia, were evaluated through the follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant between-group differences were observed in terms of the duration of clinical symptoms, CRP, and lymphopenia at 0, 7, and 14 days of intervention. Although the proportion of participants with fever, cough, positive CRP, and lymphopenia was higher reduced in the colchicine group than the placebo during treatment, no significant differences were found between groups. Due to no adverse effects detected in this trial, colchicine therapy was well-tolerated and safe.

CONCLUSION

Our findings revealed that colchicine adjuvant therapy had no beneficial effect on clinical and para-clinical parameters in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients during 14 days of intervention. The present trial does not support colchicine as a potential treatment against COVID-19 disease.

Electronic health records (EHRs) in clinical research and platform trials: Application of the innovative EHR-based methods developed by EU-PEARL

OBJECTIVE

Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems are digital platforms in clinical practice used to collect patients' clinical information related to their health status and represents a useful storage of real-world data. EHRs have a potential role in research studies, in particular, in platform trials. Platform trials are innovative trial designs including multiple trial arms (conducted simultaneously and/or sequentially) on different treatments under a single master protocol. However, the use of EHRs in research comes with important challenges such as incompleteness of records and the need to translate trial eligibility criteria into interoperable queries. In this paper, we aim to review and to describe our proposed innovative methods to tackle some of the most important challenges identified. This work is part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) EU Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms (EU-PEARL) project's work package 3 (WP3), whose objective is to deliver tools and guidance for EHR-based protocol feasibility assessment, clinical site selection, and patient pre-screening in platform trials, investing in the building of a data-driven clinical network framework that can execute these complex innovative designs for which feasibility assessments are critically important.

METHODS

ISO standards and relevant references informed a readiness survey, producing 354 criteria with corresponding questions selected and harmonised through a 7-round scoring process (0-1) in stakeholder meetings, with 85% of consensus being the threshold of acceptance for a criterium/question. ATLAS cohort definition and Cohort Diagnostics were mainly used to create the trial feasibility eligibility (I/E) criteria as executable interoperable queries.

RESULTS

The WP3/EU-PEARL group developed a readiness survey (eSurvey) for an efficient selection of clinical sites with suitable EHRs, consisting of yes-or-no questions, and a set-up of interoperable proxy queries using physicians' defined trial criteria. Both actions facilitate recruiting trial participants and alignment between study costs/timelines and data-driven recruitment potential.

CONCLUSION

The eSurvey will help create an archive of clinical sites with mature EHR systems suitable to participate in clinical trials/platform trials, and the interoperable proxy queries of trial eligibility criteria will help identify the number of potential participants. Ultimately, these tools will contribute to the production of EHR-based protocol design.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

INTRODUCTION

There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Plausibility of natural immunomodulators in the treatment of COVID-19-A comprehensive analysis and future recommendations

The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted millions of deaths worldwide. Despite the availability of several vaccines and some special drugs approved for emergency use to prevent or treat this disease still, there is a huge concern regarding their effectiveness, adverse effects, and most importantly, their efficacy against the new variants. A cascade of immune-inflammatory responses is involved with the pathogenesis and severe complications with COVID-19. People with dysfunctional and compromised immune systems display severe complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, multiple organ failure etc., when they get infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Plant-derived natural immune-suppressant compounds, such as resveratrol, quercetin, curcumin, berberine, luteolin, etc., have been reported to inhibit pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. Therefore, natural products with immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory potential could be plausible targets to treat this contagious disease. This review aims to delineate the clinical trials status and outcomes of natural compounds with immunomodulatory potential in COVID-19 patients along with the outcomes of their in-vivo studies. In clinical trials several natural immunomodulators resulted in significant improvement of COVID-19 patients by diminishing COVID-19 symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, and breathlessness. Most importantly, they reduced the duration of hospitalization and the need for supplemental oxygen therapy, improved clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially weakness, and eliminated acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. This paper also discusses many potent natural immunomodulators yet to undergo clinical trials. In-vivo studies with natural immunomodulators demonstrated reduction of a wide range of proinflammatory cytokines. Natural immunomodulators that were found effective, safe, and well tolerated in small-scale clinical trials are warranted to undergo large-scale trials to be used as drugs to treat COVID-19 infections. Alongside, compounds yet to test clinically must undergo clinical trials to find their effectiveness and safety in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.

Phase II, Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial Investigating the Efficacy of Mebendazole in the Management of Symptomatic COVID-19 Patients

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has spread throughout the world, affecting almost all nations and territories. The current double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of mebendazole as an adjuvant therapy for outpatients with COVID-19. The patients were recruited and divided into two groups: a Mebendazole-treated group and placebo group. The mebendazole and placebo groups were matched for age, sex, and complete blood count (CBC) with differential and liver and kidney function tests at baseline. On the third day, the C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were lower (2.03 ± 1.45 vs. 5.45 ± 3.95, p < 0.001) and the cycle threshold (CT) levels were higher (27.21 ± 3.81 vs. 24.40 ± 3.09, p = 0.046) significantly in the mebendazole group than in the placebo group on the third day. Furthermore, CRP decreased and CT dramatically increased on day three compared to the baseline day in the mebendazole group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.008, respectively). There was a significant inverse correlation between lymphocytes and CT levels in the mebendazole group (r = -0.491, p = 0.039) but not in the placebo group (r = 0.051, p = 0.888). Mebendazole therapy increased innate immunity and returned inflammation to normal levels in COVID-19 outpatients faster than it did in the placebo group in this clinical trial. Our findings add to the growing body of research on the clinical and microbiological benefits of repurposing antiparasitic therapy, specifically mebendazole, for SARS-CoV-2 infection and other viral infections.

Colchicine - Renaissance of an "ancient" drug

Colchicine, which was already used by the ancient Egyptians, has recently experienced a renaissance in various medical disciplines, including dermatology. However, due to the potentially significant side effects of systemic use, many clinicians are cautious in their use of colchicine. This review provides a practical overview of the data on the established and emerging use of systemic and topical colchicine in dermatologic diseases.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.

INTERPRETATION

Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Treatment with COLchicine in hospitalized patients affected by COVID-19: The COLVID-19 trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the addition of colchicine to standard of care (SOC) results in better outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN

This interventional, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study, evaluated colchicine 1.5 mg/day added to SOC in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (COLVID-19 trial) and 227 patients were recruited. The primary outcome was the rate of critical disease in 30 days defined as need of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU), or death.

RESULTS

152 non-anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated patients (colchicine vs controls: 77vs75, mean age 69.1±13.1 vs 67.9±15 years, 39% vs 33.3% females, respectively) were analyzed. There was no difference in co-primary end-points between patients treated with colchicine compared to controls (mechanical ventilation 5.2% vs 4%, ICU 1.3% vs 5.3%, death 9.1% vs 6.7%, overall 11 (14.3%) vs 10 (13.3%) patients, P=ns, respectively). Mean time to discharge was similar (colchicine vs controls 14.1±10.4 vs 14.7±8.1 days). Older age (>60 years, P=0.025), P/F<275 mmHg (P=0.005), AST>40 U/L (P<0.001), pre-existent heart (P=0.02), lung (P=0.003), upper-gastrointestinal (P=0.014), lower-gastrointestinal diseases (P=0.009) and cancer (P=0.008) were predictive of achieving the primary outcome. Diarrhoea (9.1% vs 0%, p=0.0031) and increased levels of AST at 6 days (76.9±91.8 vs 33.5±20.7 U/l, P=0.016) were more frequent in the colchicine group.

CONCLUSION

Colchicine did not reduce the rate and the time to the critical stage. Colchicine was relatively safe although adverse hepatic effects require caution. We confirm that older (>60 years) patients with comorbidities are characterized by worse outcome.

Care for adults with COVID ‐19: living guidelines from the National COVID ‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Introduction

The Australian National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up‐to‐date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels.

Main recommendations

In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non‐pregnant adults with COVID‐19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID‐19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care.

Changes in management as a result of the guideline

The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID‐19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Coagulopathy in COVID-19 and anticoagulation clinical trials

Severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) first emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and has caused a global pandemic of a scale unprecedented in the modern era. People infected with SARS-CoV-2 can be asymptomatic, moderate symptomatic or develop severe COVID-19. Other than the typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 also develop a distinctive systemic coagulopathy, known as COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC), which is different from sepsis-related forms of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Endotheliopathy or endotheliitis are other unique features of CAC. The endothelial cell perturbation can further increase the risk of thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients. In this review, we will summarize the current knowledge on COVID-19 coagulopathy and the possible mechanisms for the condition. We also discuss the results of clinical trials testing methods for mitigating thrombosis events in COVID-19 patients.

FRAGILE-COLCOVID19: A Clinical Trial Based on Early Administration of an Oral Combination of Colchicine and Prednisone in Elderly Patients with COVID-19 in Geriatric Facilities

BACKGROUND

Unprotected and fragile elderly people in nursing homes experienced the highest mortality rates during the initial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to study the role of two oral anti-inflammatory drugs, colchicine and prednisone, in elderly patients with COVID-19 in geriatric centers.

METHODS

A phase II/III, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial was performed in a geriatric population comparing the efficacy and safety of an oral combination of prednisone (60 mg/day for 3 days) and colchicine (at loading doses of 1-1.5 mg/day for 3 days, followed by 0.5 mg/day for 11 days) with the standard treatment, based on intravenous dexamethasone. Primary endpoints assessed the efficacy in reducing death or the modified endpoint death/therapeutic failure to the study drugs over a 28-day period, while secondary endpoints included safety, laboratory changes, and additional therapies used.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients (35 female/19 male) were enrolled, 25 (46.3%) of whom were allocated to the experimental arm and 29 (53.7%) to the control arm. At day 28, no differences in deaths were observed. The combination of mortality or therapeutic failure occurred in 12 (45.13%) patients receiving dexamethasone and 6 (28.13%) patients receiving colchicine/prednisone, resulting in a reduction of risk difference (RD) of - 17% (p = 0.17), with an average reduction of 39% (risk ratio [RR] 0.61) in patients receiving colchicine/prednisone (p = 0.25). Control patients received higher amounts of additional glucocorticoids (p = 0.0095) over a longer time frame (p = 0.0003). Colchicine/prednisone significantly reduced ferritin levels at day 14, as well as D-dimer and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels at day 28. Adverse events were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination colchicine/prednisone compared with intravenous dexamethasone has shown a remarkable trend to increase disease survival over a 28-day period in elderly patients requiring oxygen therapy in geriatric centers, without safety issues.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04492358.