MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014254102 · doi:10.1002/phar.2401

Colchicine for Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention: A Systematic Review

2020· review· en· W3014254102 on OpenAlexaff
Carly A. Webb, Arden R. Barry

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammasome and immune disorders
Canadian institutionsNative Mental Health Association of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectInternal medicinePlaceboRestenosisCoronary artery diseaseEjection fractionRandomized controlled trialColchicinePercutaneous coronary interventionAngioplastyHeart failureCardiologySurgeryStentMyocardial infarctionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite advancements in medical and interventional therapy, patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) continue to have residual risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. Colchicine has a unique antiinflammatory mechanism that has generated interest in its potential use as a secondary cardiovascular preventive therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for long-term (6 months or more) colchicine therapy in patients with established CVD. A search of Medline and Embase from inception to February 2020 was performed. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or propensity score-matched observational studies that compared colchicine (at any dose) with placebo or no treatment. Outcomes of interest included any major adverse cardiovascular event, cardiovascular hospitalization, coronary artery restenosis, cardiovascular death, or all-cause death. Five RCTs were included. The dose of colchicine ranged from 0.5 mg/day to 0.6 mg twice/day, and follow-up ranged from ~6-36 months. Two trials (one double blind and one single blind) showed a reduction in composite outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events. One study failed to demonstrate a benefit with colchicine in restenosis or recurrent ischemia after angioplasty; however, it was conducted before the routine use of modern percutaneous coronary intervention and medical therapies. In contrast, a more recent trial found that colchicine reduced the rate of in-stent restenosis in patients who received a bare metal stent. Finally, one trial in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction did not observe a benefit in death or heart failure hospitalization with colchicine despite a reduction in inflammatory markers. No trial demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular or all-cause death, and most trials showed an increase in the rate of diarrhea with colchicine. Overall, colchicine has demonstrated promising results for the secondary prevention of CVD; however, further studies are required to confirm these findings before colchicine can be routinely recommended in practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicInflammasome and immune disordersFrench-language works237,207