ABSTRACT
Importance: Azithromycin has been hypothesized to have activity against SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine whether oral azithromycin in outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of azithromycin vs matching placebo conducted from May 2020 through March 2021. Outpatients from the US were enrolled remotely via internet-based surveys and followed up for 21 days. Eligible participants had a positive SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test result (nucleic acid amplification or antigen) within 7 days prior to enrollment, were aged 18 years or older, and were not hospitalized at the time of enrollment. Among 604 individuals screened, 297 were ineligible, 44 refused participation, and 263 were enrolled. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment randomization. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to a single oral 1.2-g dose of azithromycin (n = 171) or matching placebo (n = 92). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was absence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at day 14. There were 23 secondary clinical end points, including all-cause hospitalization at day 21. Results: Among 263 participants who were randomized (median age, 43 years; 174 [66%] women; 57% non-Hispanic White and 29% Latinx/Hispanic), 76% completed the trial. The trial was terminated by the data and safety monitoring committee for futility after the interim analysis. At day 14, there was no significant difference in proportion of participants who were symptom free (azithromycin: 50%; placebo: 50%; prevalence difference, 0%; 95% CI, -14% to 15%; P > .99). Of 23 prespecified secondary clinical end points, 18 showed no significant difference. By day 21, 5 participants in the azithromycin group had been hospitalized compared with 0 in the placebo group (prevalence difference, 4%; 95% CI, -1% to 9%; P = .16). Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, treatment with a single dose of azithromycin compared with placebo did not result in greater likelihood of being symptom free at day 14. These findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin for outpatient SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04332107.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Azithromycin/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Oral , Adult , Anti-Bacterial Agents/administration & dosage , Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects , Azithromycin/administration & dosage , Azithromycin/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Symptom Assessment , Treatment FailureSubject(s)
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological , Eye Diseases/diagnosis , Intraocular Pressure , Parking Facilities , Point-of-Care Testing , Quick Diagnosis Units , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Child , Child, Preschool , Clinical Decision-Making , Eye Diseases/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , Triage , Workflow , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To study the feasibility and efficacy of a new remote wet lab for microsurgical education using a corneal suturing task. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled study. METHODS: Ten ophthalmology residents were stratified by postgraduate year and randomized to perform a corneal suturing task consisting of placing the 4 cardinal sutures for a penetrating keratoplasty in porcine eyes with or without remote ophthalmology attending feedback. Subsequently, both groups repeated the same task without remote feedback to test whether initial remote feedback affected subsequent performance. Finally, the group without feedback was crossed over to repeat the same corneal suturing task with remote feedback. The effectiveness of the remote wet lab was assessed subjectively by survey and objectively by grading each suture pass. RESULTS: Resident-reported comfort with corneal suturing improved significantly after the remote wet lab for all residents. Residents and attendings rated the remote wet lab as equally or more effective compared with previous in-person wet labs and overall effective in corneal suturing. Attendings rated the remote wet lab as effective in multiple domains of microsurgical education using a modified microsurgical global rating scale. Objective corneal suturing performance was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The remote wet lab was feasible and effective for training ophthalmology residents in corneal suturing. This represents a new social distancing compliant platform for microsurgical education during the COVID-19 pandemic.