Colchicine for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and atherosclerotic events: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.

IF 9.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL EClinicalMedicine Pub Date : 2024-10-08 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102835
Aernoud T L Fiolet, Michiel H F Poorthuis, Tjerk S J Opstal, Pierre Amarenco, Kevin Emery Boczar, Ian Buysschaert, Charley Budgeon, Noel C Chan, Jan H Cornel, Sanjit S Jolly, Jamie Layland, Robin Lemmens, Nathan Mewton, Stefan M Nidorf, Domingo A Pascual-Figal, Christopher Price, Binita Shah, Jean-Claude Tardif, Peter L Thompson, Jan G P Tijssen, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Cathal Walsh, Yongjun Wang, Christian Weimar, John W Eikelboom, Arend Mosterd, Peter J Kelly
{"title":"Colchicine for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and atherosclerotic events: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.","authors":"Aernoud T L Fiolet, Michiel H F Poorthuis, Tjerk S J Opstal, Pierre Amarenco, Kevin Emery Boczar, Ian Buysschaert, Charley Budgeon, Noel C Chan, Jan H Cornel, Sanjit S Jolly, Jamie Layland, Robin Lemmens, Nathan Mewton, Stefan M Nidorf, Domingo A Pascual-Figal, Christopher Price, Binita Shah, Jean-Claude Tardif, Peter L Thompson, Jan G P Tijssen, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Cathal Walsh, Yongjun Wang, Christian Weimar, John W Eikelboom, Arend Mosterd, Peter J Kelly","doi":"10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines recommend low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease, but uncertainty remains concerning its efficacy for stroke, efficacy in key subgroups and about uncommon but serious safety outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this trial-level meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries form inception to May 16, 2024. We included randomised trials of colchicine for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, or cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes were serious safety outcomes and mortality. A fixed-effect inverse-variance model was used to generate a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024540320.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Six trials involving 14,934 patients with prior stroke or coronary disease were included. In all patients, colchicine compared with placebo or no colchicine reduced the risk for ischaemic stroke by 27% (132 [1.8%] events versus 186 [2.5%] events, RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.90]) and MACE by 27% (505 [6.8%] events versus 693 [9.4%] events, with RR 0.73 [0.65-0.81]). Efficacy was consistent in key subgroups (females versus males, age below versus above 70, with versus without diabetes, statin versus non-statin users). Colchicine was not associated with an increase in serious safety outcomes: hospitalisation for pneumonia (109 [1.5%] versus 106 [1.5%], RR 0.99 [0.76-1.30]), cancer (247 [3.5%] versus 255 [3.6%], RR 0.97 [0.82-1.15]), and gastro-intestinal events (153 [2.1%] versus 135 [1.9%]), RR 1.15 [0.91-1.44]. There was no difference in all-cause death (201 [2.7%] versus 181 [2.4%], RR 1.09 [0.89-1.33]), cardiovascular death (70 [0.9%] versus 80 [1.1%], RR 0.89 [0.65-1.23]), or non-cardiovascular death (131 [1.8%] versus 101 [1.4%], RR 1.26 [0.98-1.64]).</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In patients with prior stroke or coronary disease, colchicine reduced ischaemic stroke and MACE, with consistent treatment effect in key subgroups, and did not increase serious safety events or death.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>There was no funding source for this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":11393,"journal":{"name":"EClinicalMedicine","volume":"76 ","pages":"102835"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11490869/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EClinicalMedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102835","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Guidelines recommend low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease, but uncertainty remains concerning its efficacy for stroke, efficacy in key subgroups and about uncommon but serious safety outcomes.

Methods: In this trial-level meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries form inception to May 16, 2024. We included randomised trials of colchicine for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, or cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes were serious safety outcomes and mortality. A fixed-effect inverse-variance model was used to generate a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024540320.

Findings: Six trials involving 14,934 patients with prior stroke or coronary disease were included. In all patients, colchicine compared with placebo or no colchicine reduced the risk for ischaemic stroke by 27% (132 [1.8%] events versus 186 [2.5%] events, RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.90]) and MACE by 27% (505 [6.8%] events versus 693 [9.4%] events, with RR 0.73 [0.65-0.81]). Efficacy was consistent in key subgroups (females versus males, age below versus above 70, with versus without diabetes, statin versus non-statin users). Colchicine was not associated with an increase in serious safety outcomes: hospitalisation for pneumonia (109 [1.5%] versus 106 [1.5%], RR 0.99 [0.76-1.30]), cancer (247 [3.5%] versus 255 [3.6%], RR 0.97 [0.82-1.15]), and gastro-intestinal events (153 [2.1%] versus 135 [1.9%]), RR 1.15 [0.91-1.44]. There was no difference in all-cause death (201 [2.7%] versus 181 [2.4%], RR 1.09 [0.89-1.33]), cardiovascular death (70 [0.9%] versus 80 [1.1%], RR 0.89 [0.65-1.23]), or non-cardiovascular death (131 [1.8%] versus 101 [1.4%], RR 1.26 [0.98-1.64]).

Interpretation: In patients with prior stroke or coronary disease, colchicine reduced ischaemic stroke and MACE, with consistent treatment effect in key subgroups, and did not increase serious safety events or death.

Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
秋水仙碱用于缺血性中风和动脉粥样硬化事件的二级预防:随机试验荟萃分析。
背景:指南推荐小剂量秋水仙碱用于心血管疾病的二级预防,但其对中风的疗效、对关键亚组的疗效以及不常见但严重的安全性结果仍存在不确定性:在这项试验水平荟萃分析中,我们检索了从开始到 2024 年 5 月 16 日的文献数据库和试验登记。我们纳入了秋水仙碱用于缺血性中风和主要不良心血管事件(MACE:缺血性中风、心肌梗死、冠状动脉血运重建或心血管死亡)二级预防的随机试验。次要结果为严重安全性结果和死亡率。该研究采用固定效应逆方差模型得出相对风险 (RR) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的汇总估计值。本研究已在 PROSPERO 注册,编号为 CRD42024540320:共纳入了六项试验,涉及 14934 名曾患有中风或冠心病的患者。在所有患者中,秋水仙碱与安慰剂或不使用秋水仙碱相比,缺血性中风风险降低了 27%(132 [1.8%] 例对 186 [2.5%] 例,RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.90]),MACE 风险降低了 27%(505 [6.8%] 例对 693 [9.4%] 例,RR 0.73 [0.65-0.81])。主要亚组(女性与男性、70 岁以下与 70 岁以上、有糖尿病与无糖尿病、他汀类药物使用者与非他汀类药物使用者)的疗效一致。秋水仙碱与严重安全性结果的增加无关:肺炎住院(109 [1.5%] 对 106 [1.5%],RR 0.99 [0.76-1.30])、癌症(247 [3.5%] 对 255 [3.6%],RR 0.97 [0.82-1.15])和胃肠道事件(153 [2.1%] 对 135 [1.9%]),RR 1.15 [0.91-1.44]。全因死亡(201 [2.7%] 对 181 [2.4%],RR 1.09 [0.89-1.33])、心血管死亡(70 [0.9%] 对 80 [1.1%],RR 0.89 [0.65-1.23])或非心血管死亡(131 [1.8%] 对 101 [1.4%],RR 1.26 [0.98-1.64])方面没有差异:在既往有中风或冠心病的患者中,秋水仙碱可减少缺血性中风和MACE,在关键亚组中治疗效果一致,且不会增加严重安全事件或死亡:本研究无资金来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
EClinicalMedicine
EClinicalMedicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
18.90
自引率
1.30%
发文量
506
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: eClinicalMedicine is a gold open-access clinical journal designed to support frontline health professionals in addressing the complex and rapid health transitions affecting societies globally. The journal aims to assist practitioners in overcoming healthcare challenges across diverse communities, spanning diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and health promotion. Integrating disciplines from various specialties and life stages, it seeks to enhance health systems as fundamental institutions within societies. With a forward-thinking approach, eClinicalMedicine aims to redefine the future of healthcare.
期刊最新文献
Impact of sedative and appetite-increasing properties on the apparent antidepressant efficacy of mirtazapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and amitriptyline: an item-based, patient-level meta-analysis. The hockey fans in training intervention for men with overweight or obesity: a pragmatic cluster randomised trial. Deep learning model for automated diagnosis of moyamoya disease based on magnetic resonance angiography. The value of diagnostic imaging for enhancing primary care in low- and middle-income countries. The performance of a point-of-care test for the diagnosis of Neurocysticercosis in a resource-poor community setting in Zambia - a diagnostic accuracy study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1