Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34151410›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions2021

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

Waqas Ullah, Shujaul Haq, Salman Zahid, Smitha Narayana Gowda, Patrick Ottman, Sameer Saleem, Ihab Hamzeh, Salim S Virani, Mahboob Alam, David L Fischman

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Waqas UllahDepartment of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA. waqasullah.dr@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4850-0309
Shujaul HaqDepartment of Internal Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, PA, USA.
Salman ZahidDepartment of Internal Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Smitha Narayana GowdaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA.
Patrick OttmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Abington Jefferson Health, Abington, PA, USA.
Sameer SaleemDepartment of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Medical Center Health, Bowling Green, KY, USA.
Ihab HamzehDepartment of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Salim S ViraniDepartment of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Mahboob AlamDepartment of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
David L FischmanDepartment of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · USBaylor College of Medicine · USMichael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center · USRochester General Hospital · USUniversity of South Dakota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence from recent trials has shown conflicting results in terms of the utility of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

methodsMultiple 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.

resultsTen 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).

conclusionIn 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.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeColchicineCoronary Artery DiseaseHumansColchicine

Identifiers

PMID34151410
OpenAlexW3176932307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.