MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410037242 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf174

Long-term trials of colchicine for secondary prevention of vascular events: a meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410037242 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Samuel, Colin Berry, Marie‐Pierre Dubé, Wolfgang Köenig, José López‐Sendón, Aldo P. Maggioni, Fausto J. Pinto, François Roubille, Jean‐Claude Tardif

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammasome and immune disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHealth Care FoundationMontreal Heart InstituteDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColchicineTerm (time)Meta-analysisSecondary preventionIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colchicine has emerged as a safe and inexpensive anti-inflammatory medication to target the residual risk of cardiovascular events in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Two recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating colchicine in the post-stroke and post-myocardial infarction (MI) populations warrant a re-evaluation of colchicine. New evidence was synthesized in a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of colchicine for the secondary prevention of vascular disease. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing the incidence of cardiovascular events between patients with clinically manifest vascular disease randomized to colchicine vs. placebo and ≥12-month follow-up were included. The primary efficacy endpoint is major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and includes cardiovascular mortality, MI, ischaemic stroke, and urgent coronary revascularization. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Six RCTs, with a pooled sample size of 21 800 patients, were included (colchicine n = 10 871; placebo n = 10 929). Over a follow-up of 12-34 months, colchicine reduced the incidence of MACE compared with placebo [pooled hazard ratio .75, 95% confidence interval (CI) .56-.93]. The reduction in cardiovascular events among colchicine patients was driven by reductions in MIs, ischaemic strokes, and urgent coronary revascularizations (P < .05 for all). No differences were detected for safety outcomes (P > .05 for all), including non-cardiovascular deaths (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI .76-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated a substantial reduction in MACE, MI, ischaemic stroke, and recurrent coronary revascularization with colchicine compared with placebo. Therefore, the results support the use of colchicine to reduce recurrent cardiovascular events.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.055
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations56
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicInflammasome and immune disordersFrench-language works237,207