Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Nov 2, 2026.

Azithromycin for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

Christopher C Butler, Jienchi Dorward, Ly-Mee Yu and 15 more

The Lancet · 2021 · Randomised trial · CC BY

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00461-x

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care.

References 30

  1. 1.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.
    Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 among patients in the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre primary care network: a cross-sectional study · 2020
    No notice
  12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.
    In vitro screening of a FDA approved chemical library reveals potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 replication · 2020
    No notice
  19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.
    Azithromycin in viral infections · 2020
    No notice
  21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.
    Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial · 2021
    No notice
  24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

  30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.