Safety and Efficacy of Colchicine in Patients with Stable CAD and ACS: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ullah W, Haq S, Zahid S, Gowda SN, Ottman P, Saleem S, Hamzeh I, Virani SS, Alam M, Fischman DL. Safety and Efficacy of Colchicine in Patients with Stable CAD and ACS: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs : Drugs, Devices, and Other Interventions. 2021 Nov 1; 21(6):659-668.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 16-072 – Determining and targeting reasons for low statin use to improve guideline-concordant statin therapy in high-risk patients

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Evidence from recent trials has shown conflicting results in terms of the utility of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Multiple databases were queried to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the merits of colchicine in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable CAD. The pooled relative risk ratio (RR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), its components, and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events were computed using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Ten RCTs comprising a total of 12,761 patients were identified. At a median follow-up of 12 months, there was a significantly lower risk of MACE [RR 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-96], ACS (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.96), ischemic stroke (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22-0.81), and need for revascularization (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-90) in patients receiving colchicine compared with placebo. A subgroup analysis based on the clinical presentation showed that the significantly lower incidence of MACE and stroke were driven by the patients presenting with ACS. The use of colchicine in patients with stable CAD did not reduce the incidence of MACE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.28-1.09), ACS (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.08), or stroke (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.13). There was no significant difference in the relative risk of cardiac arrest, ACS, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality between the two groups in both ACS and stable CAD populations. The risk of GI adverse events was significantly higher in patients receiving colchicine (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.12-3.95). CONCLUSION: In patients presenting with ACS, low-dose colchicine might reduce the incidence of MACE, stroke, and the need for revascularization at long follow-up durations. Colchicine might offer no benefits in reducing the risk of ischemic events in patients with stable angina.