Evidence Hub

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

Michelle Samuel, C. Berry, Marie-Pierre Dubé, Wolfgang Koenig, J. López-Sendón, A. Maggioni, Fausto J. Pinto, F. Roubille et al.

European Heart Journal, 2025

21 participants · 79 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 21 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free