Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39431112›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

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

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 and 18 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. ESO annual stroke evidence update 2025.European stroke journal · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Anti-inflammatory pharmacotherapy in patients with cardiovascular disease.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025
    Review
  18. Guideline for Chronic Coronary Syndrome - 2025.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

28 authors.

Aernoud T L FioletDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Michiel H F PoorthuisDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tjerk S J OpstalDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pierre AmarencoDepartment of Neurology, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, France.
Kevin Emery BoczarDepartment of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ian BuysschaertDepartment of Cardiology, Sint-Jan Hospital, Brugge, Belgium.
Charley BudgeonCardiovascular Epidemiology Research Centre, School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Noel C ChanDepartment of Haematology and Thromboembolism, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jan H CornelDutch Network for Cardiovascular Research (WCN), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sanjit S JollyDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jamie LaylandCardiology, Department of Medicine, Peninsula Health, Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Monash University, VIC, Australia.
Robin LemmensDepartment of Neurology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nathan MewtonDepartment of Cardiology, Institut de Cardiologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Stefan M NidorfHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, Perth, Australia.
Domingo A Pascual-FigalDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Christopher PriceStroke Research Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Binita ShahVA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA.
Jean-Claude TardifMontreal Heart Institute, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Peter L ThompsonCardiovascular Epidemiology Research Centre, School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Jan G P TijssenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Georgios TsivgoulisSecond Department of Neurology, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Cathal WalshTCD Biostatistics Unit, Discipline of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Yongjun WangDepartment of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Beijing, China.
Christian WeimarInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
John W EikelboomDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Arend MosterdDutch Network for Cardiovascular Research (WCN), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter J KellyMater Misericordiae University Hospital and School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Ireland.
Colchicine Cardiovascular Trialists Collaboration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

ColchicineMACEMeta-analysisSafetyStroke

Identifiers

PMID39431112
PMCPMC11490869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.