Colchicine in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-analysis

Introduction Colchicine, thought to exert its effect via reduction of inflammation, has recently been studied in patients following acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this high-risk cohort, evaluating efficacy and safety. Methods MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, clinical trial registries, and select conference proceedings were searched for RCTs comparing colchicine to placebo in patients following ACS. The primary outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause and cardiovascular death, and urgent revascularization. Analysis was performed at the longest available clinical follow-up. Results Two RCTs with a pooled sample size of 5540 patients with 2778 (50.1%) receiving colchicine and 2762 (49.9%) placebo were included. In order to maximize consistency, composite efficacy endpoints between trials were modified. Compared to placebo, patients receiving colchicine had reduction in study-defined composite endpoint (5.5% vs. 7.6%) OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.46–0.98, p = 0.04, I 2 = 46%). Similarly, there was a significant reduction in cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14–0.69, p = 0.004, I 2 = 0%) and repeat revascularization OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.14–0.90, p = 0.03, I 2 = 54%). There was no difference between cardiovascular death (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52–1.62, p = 0.78, I 2 = 0%), non-cardiovascular death OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.72–2.24, p = 0.41, I 2 = 0%), MI at longest available follow-up OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.67–1.17, p = 0.39, I 2 = 0%) or resuscitated cardiac arrest OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.32–2.43, p = 0.81, I 2 = 0%) in those receiving colchicine. Conclusions These data suggest colchicine, in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy following acute coronary syndrome reduces MACE, cerebrovascular accidents, and rates of urgent revascularization at 2 years of follow-up.