Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

کلشی‌سین برای پیشگیری از وقوع حوادث قلبی‌عروقی

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Adhami 1998 {published data only}

Adhami JE, Basho J. Treatment with colchicine and survival of patients with ascitic cirrhosis: a double-blind randomized trial. Panminerva Medica1998;40(1):75-81. CENTRAL

Almasio 2000 {published data only}

Almasio PL, Floreani A, Chiaramonte M, Provenzano G, Battezzati P, Crosignani A, et al. Multicentre randomized placebo-controlled trial of ursodeoxycholic acid with or without colchicine in symptomatic primary biliary cirrhosis. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics2000;14(12):1645-52. CENTRAL
Battezzati PM, Zuin M, Crosignani A, Allocca M, Invernizzi P, Selmi C, et al. Ten-year combination treatment with colchicine and ursodeoxycholic acid for primary biliary cirrhosis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on symptomatic patients. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics2001;15(9):1427-34. CENTRAL

Antoniou 2006 {published data only}

Antoniou KM, Nicholson AG, Dimadi M, Malagari K, Latsi P, Rapti A, et al. Long-term clinical effects of interferon gamma-1b and colchicine in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. European Respiratory Journal2006;28(3):496-504. CENTRAL

Bodenheimer 1988 {published data only}

Bodenheimer H Jr, Schaffner F, Pezzullo J. Evaluation of colchicine therapy in primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology1988;95(1):124-9. CENTRAL
Bodenheimer H, Schaffner F, Pezzullo J. A randomized double-blind controlled trial of colchicine in primary biliary cirrhosis [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1985;5(5):968. CENTRAL

Buligescu 1989 {published data only}

Buligescu L, Voiculescu M. Randomized controlled clinical trial of colchicine in the long term treatment of liver cirrhosis [EASL abstract]. Journal of Hepatology1989;9(Suppl 1):S12. CENTRAL

Colman 1998 {published data only}

Colman JC, Cromie SL, Cox JM, Roberts SK, Dudley E, Dudley FJ. The natural history of alcoholic cirrhosis: Effect of colchicine [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1998;28(Suppl 4):510A. CENTRAL

Copilot {published data only}

Afdhal NH, Levine R, Brown Jr R, Freilich B, O'Brien M, Brass C. Colchicine versus peg-interferon alfa 2b long term therapy: results of the 4 year copilot trial. Journal of Hepatology2008;48(Suppl 2):S4. CENTRAL

CORE {published data only}

Imazio M, Bobbio M, Cecchi E, Demarie D, Pomari F, Moratti M, et al. Colchicine as first-choice therapy for recurrent pericarditis: results of the CORE (COlchicine for REcurrent pericarditis) trial. Archives of Internal Medicine2005;165(17):1987-91. CENTRAL

CORP {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Cemin R, Rerrua S, Belli R, Maestroni S, et al. Colchicine for recurrent pericarditis (CORP): A randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine2011;55(7):409-14. CENTRAL

CORP‐2 {published data only}

Imazio M, Belli R, Brucato A, Cemin R, Ferrua S, Begaraj F, Demarie D, et al. Efficacy and safety of colchicine for treatment of multiple recurrences of pericarditis (CORP-2): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet2014;383(9936):2232-7. CENTRAL

Cortez‐Pinto 2002 {published data only}

Cortez-Pinto H, Alexandrino P, Camilo ME, Gouveia-Oliveira A, Santos PM, Alves MM, et al. Lack of effect of colchicine in alcoholic cirrhosis: final results of a double blind randomized trial. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology2002;14(4):377-81. CENTRAL

Deftereos 2013 {published data only}

Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Raisakis K, Kossyvakis C, Kaoukis A, Panagopoulou V, et al. Colchicine treatment for the prevention of bare-metal stent restenosis in diabetic patients. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;61(16):1679-85. CENTRAL

Deftereos 2014a {published data only}

Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Panagopoulou V, Bouras G, Raisakis K, Kossyvakis C, et al. Anti-Inflammatory treatment with colchicine in stable chronic heart failure: a prospective, randomized study. JACC. Heart Failure2014;2(2):131-7. CENTRAL

Douglas 1998 {published data only}

Douglas WW, Ryu JH, Swensen SJ, Offord KP, Schroeder DR, Caron GM, et al. Colchicine versus prednisone in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A randomized prospective study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine1998;158(1):220-5. CENTRAL

Ikeda 1996 {published data only}

Ikeda T, Tozuka S, Noguchi O, Kobayashi F, Sakamoto S, Marumo F, et al. Effects of additional administration of colchicine in ursodeoxycholic acid-treated patients with primary biliary cirrhosis: a prospective randomized study. Journal of Hepatology1996;24(1):88-94. CENTRAL

Kaplan 1986 {published data only}

Kaplan MM, Alling DW, Zimmerman HJ, Wolfe HJ, Spersky RA, Hirsch GS, et al. A prospective trial of colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis. New England Journal of Medicine 1986;315(23):1448-54. CENTRAL

Kaplan 1999 {published data only}

Kaplan MM, Cheng S, Price LL, Bonis PA. A randomized controlled trial of colchicine plus ursodiol versus methotrexate plus ursodiol in primary biliary cirrhosis: ten-year results. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 2004;39(4):915-23. CENTRAL
Kaplan MM, Schmid C, Provenzale D, Sharma A, Dickstein G, McKusick A. A prospective trial of colchicine and methotrexate in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology1999;117(5):1173-80. CENTRAL

Kershenobich 1976 {published data only}

Kershenobich D, Uribe M, Suarez GI, Rojkind M. Treatment of cirrhosis with colchicine: a randomized trial [abstract]. Gastroenterology1976;70(5):A128/986. CENTRAL

Kershenobich 1988 {published data only}

Kershenobich D, Vargas F, Garcia-Tsao G, Perez Tamayo R, Gent M, Rojkind M. Colchicine in the treatment of cirrhosis of the liver. New England Journal of Medicine1988;318(26):1709-13. CENTRAL

Kyle 1985 {published data only}

Kyle RA, Greipp PR, Garton JP, Gertz MA. Primary systemic amyloidosis. Comparison of melphalan/prednisone versus colchicine. American Journal of Medicine1985;79(6):708-16. CENTRAL

Kyle 1997 {published data only}

Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Greipp PR, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Lacy MQ, et al. A trial of three regimens for primary amyloidosis: Colchicine alone, melphalan and prednisone, melphalan, prednisone, and colchicine. New England Journal of Medicine1997;336(17):1202-7. CENTRAL

Lin 1996 {published data only}

Lin DY, Sheen IS, Chu CM, Liaw YF. A prospective randomized trial of colchicine in prevention of liver cirrhosis in chronic hepatitis B patients. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics1996;10(6):961-6. CENTRAL

Lukina 1995 {published data only}

Lukina G. Treatment of renal reactive amyloidosis (ReAm) in rheumatic diseases with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and colchicine (Col). Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie1995;54(5):377. CENTRAL

Morgan 2005 {published data only}

Morgan TR, Weiss DG, Nemchausky B, Schiff ER, Anand B, Simon F, et al. Colchicine treatment of alcoholic cirrhosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of patient survival. Gastroenterology2005;128(4):882-90. CENTRAL

Muntoni 2010 {published data only}

Muntoni S, Rojkind M, Muntoni S. Colchicine reduces procollagen III and increases pseudocholinesterase in chronic liver disease. World Journal of Gastroenterology2010;16(23):2889-94. CENTRAL

Nidorf 2013 {published data only}

Nidorf SM, Eikelboom JW, Budgeon CA, Thompson PL. Low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;61(4):404-10. CENTRAL

Nikolaidis 2006 {published data only}

Nikolaidis N, Kountouras J, Giouleme O, Tzarou V, Chatzizisi O, Patsiaoura K, et al. Colchicine treatment of liver fibrosis. Hepato-gastroenterology2006;53(68):281-5. CENTRAL

O'Keefe 1992 {published data only}

O'Keefe JH Jr, McCallister BD, Bateman TM, Kuhnlein DL, Ligon RW, Hartzler GO. Ineffectiveness of colchicine for the prevention of restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1992;19(7):1597-600. CENTRAL

Olsson 1995 {published data only}

Olsson R, Broomé U, Danielsson A, Hägerstrand I, Järnerot G, Lööf L, et al. Colchicine treatment of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Gastroenterology1995;108(4):1199-203. CENTRAL

Parise 1995 {published data only}

Parise ER, Chehter L, Nogueira MD, Leite-Mor MM, Neves JR, Ciuffardi G, et al. [Colchicine in chronic liver disease of alcoholic etiology. Double-blind, randomized study of its effects on blood levels of plasma proteins and clinical course in patients]. Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 1995;41:207-12. CENTRAL

Paulus 1974 {published data only}

Paulus HE, Schlosstein LH, Godfrey RG, Klinenberg JR, Bluestone R. Prophylactic colchicine therapy of intercritical gout. A placebo controlled study of probenecid treated patients. Arthritis and Rheumatism1974;17(5):609-14. CENTRAL

Poupon 1996 {published data only}

Poupon RE, Huet PM, Poupon R, Bonnand AM, Nhieu JT, Zafrani ES. A randomized trial comparing colchicine and ursodeoxycholic acid combination to ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cirrhosis. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1996;24(5):1098-103. CENTRAL

Raedsch 1992 {published data only}

Raedsch R, Stiehl A, Walker S, Scherrmann JM, Kommerell B. Controlled study on the effects of a combined ursodeoxycholic acid plus colchicine treatment in primary biliary cirrhosis. Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie1992;30(Suppl 1):55-7. CENTRAL

Reinhardt 1986 {published data only}

Reinhardt M, Jorke D, Jahn G, Krombholz B, Müller A, Machnik G, et al. Colchicine therapy of fibrosing liver diseases--report of a randomized double-blind study. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten1986;46(5):257-75. CENTRAL

Trinchet 1989 {published data only}

Trinchet JC, Beaugrand M, Callard P, Hartmann DJ, Gotheil C, Nusgens BV, et al. Treatment of alcoholic hepatitis with colchicine. Results of a randomized double blind trial. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique 1989;13(6-7):551-5. CENTRAL

Vuoristo 1995 {published data only}

Vuoristo M, Färkkilä M, Karvonen AL, Leino R, Lehtola J, Mäkinen J, et al. A placebo-controlled trial of primary biliary cirrhosis treatment with colchicine and ursodeoxycholic acid. Gastroenterology1995;108(5):1470-8. CENTRAL

Wang 1994 {published data only}

Wang YJ, Lee SD, Hsieh MC, Lin HC, Lee FY, Tsay SH, et al. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of colchicine in patients with hepatitis B virus-related postnecrotic cirrhosis. Journal of Hepatology1994;21(5):872-7. CENTRAL

Warnes 1987 {published data only}

Warnes TW, Smith A, Lee FI, Haboubi NY, Johnson PJ, Hunt L. A controlled trial of colchicine in primary biliary cirrhosis. Trial design and preliminary report. Journal of Hepatology 1987;5(1):1-7. CENTRAL

Yurdakul 2001 {published data only}

Yurdakul S, Mat C, Tüzün Y, Ozyazgan Y, Hamuryudan V, Uysal O, et al. A double-blind trial of colchicine in Behçet's syndrome. Arthritis and Rheumatism2001;44(11):2688-92. CENTRAL

Afdhal 2002 {published data only}

Afdhal NH, Freilich B, Black M, Levine R, Brass C. Comparison of therapy with peg-intron 05 mcg/kg versus colchicine 06 mg bid in 250 patients with cirrhosis and HCV: interim data from copilot [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2002;36:312a. CENTRAL

Afdhal 2004 {published data only}

Afdhal N, Freilich B, Levine R, Black M, Brown Jr R, Monsour H, et al. Colchicine versus peg-intron long term (COPILOT) trial: interim analysis of clinical outcomes at year 2. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2004;40(4 Suppl 1):239a. CENTRAL

Ahern 1986 {published data only}

Ahern M, Gordon T, Reid C, Brooks P, McCredie M. Colchicine in acute gout (AG). [abstract]. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine1986;16(1 Suppl):144. CENTRAL

Ahern 1987 {published data only}

Ahern MJ, Reid C, Gordon TP, McCredie M, Brooks PM, Jones M. Does colchicine work? The results of the first controlled study in acute gout. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 1987;17(3):301-4. CENTRAL

Ahmad 2011 {published data only}

Ahmad E, Zaidi SMA, Jamil S. Efficacy of cupping therapy with colchicum oil in knee joint osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled pilot study. Planta Medica 2011;77:148. CENTRAL

Ahmadieh 2014 {published data only}

Ahmadieh H, Nourinia R, Ragati Haghi A, Ramezani A, Entezari M, Rahmani G, et al. Oral colchicine for prevention of proliferative vitreoretinopathy: A randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmologica 2015;93(2):e171-2. CENTRAL

Akriviadis 1988 {published data only}

Akriviadis E, Steindel H, Pinto P, Fong TL, Kanel G, Reynolds TB, et al. Failure of colchicine to improve short term survival in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1988;8(5):1239. CENTRAL

Aktulga 1980 {published data only}

Aktulga E, Altac M, Muftuoglu A, Ozyazgan Y, Pazarli H, Tuzun Y, et al. A double blind study of colchicine in Behçet's disease. Haematologica 1980;65:399-402. CENTRAL

Albillos 2013 {published data only}

Albillos A, Penas B, De la Revilla J, Lario M, Pastor O, Martin C, et al. Ribavirin maintenance treatment reduces portal pressure in hepatitis C virus cirrhosis: A randomized open-label trial of ribavirin versus colchicine. Hepatology 2013;58:990A-1A. CENTRAL

Alsahaf 2010 {published data only}

Alsahaf S, Tappuni A, McParland H, Cook RJ, Pankhurst C, Shirlaw P, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of colchicine with and without betnesol mouthwash in management of RAS. Oral Diseases 2010;16:546. CENTRAL

Angelico 1998 {published data only}

Angelico M, Barlattani A, Cepparulo M, Guarascio P, Sarrecchia C, Liuti A, et al. Colchicine worsens the efficacy of interferon-alpha in patinets with chronic hepatitis Interim report of a randomized pilot study [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1998;28(Suppl 4):478a. CENTRAL

Angelico 2000 {published data only}

Angelico M, Cepparulo M, Barlattani A, Liuti A, Gentile S, Hurtova M, et al. Unfavourable effects of colchicine in combination with interferon-alpha in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2000;14(11):1459-67. CENTRAL

Anonymous 2014 {published data only}

Anonymous. A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis (Erratum). New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(17):1668. CENTRAL

Antoniou 2003 {published data only}

Antoniou KM, Polychronopoulos V, Dimadi M, Rapti A, Lambrakis C, Latsi P, et al. Comparison of interferon gamma-1b (IFN-g) and colchicines in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: preliminary results of a prospective, multicentre randomized study [abstract]. In: American Thoracic Society 99th International Conference. 2003:A091 Poster 815. CENTRAL

Antoniou 2004 {published data only}

Antoniou KM, Alexandrakis MG, Sfiridaki K, Tsiligianni I, Perisinakis K, Tzortzaki EG, et al. Th1 cytokine pattern (IL-12 and IL-18) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) before and after treatment with interferon gamma-1b (IFN-gamma-1b) or colchicine in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF/UIP). Sarcoidosis, Vasculitis, and Diffuse Lung Diseases 2004;21:105-10. CENTRAL

Aran 2011 {published data only}

Aran S, Malekzadeh S, Seifirad S. A double-blind randomised controlled trial appraising the symptom-modifying effects of colchicine on osteoarthritis of the knee. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology 2011;29(3):513-8. CENTRAL

Basak 1993 {published data only}

Basak P, Chatterjee A. Oral colchicine in chronic plaque psoriasis. Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology 1993;59:168-71. CENTRAL

Bhuiyan 2010 {published data only}

Bhuiyan MSI, Sikder Md A, Rashid MM, Rabin F. Role of oral colchicine in plaque type psoriasis. A randomized clinical trial comparing with oral methotrexate. Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists 2010;20:146-51. CENTRAL

Bodenheimer 1986 {published data only}

Bodenheimer H, Schaffner F, Pezzullo J. Colchicine therapy in primary biliary cirrhosis [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1986;6:1172. CENTRAL

Brucato 2011 {published data only}

Brucato A, Maestroni S, Cumetti D, Cemin R, Ferrua S, Belli R, et al. Colchicine halves, but does not eliminate recurrences in pericarditis: Colchicine for recurrent pericarditis. A randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis and Rheumatism2011;63. CENTRAL

Buligescu 1990 {published data only}

Buligescu L, Voiculescu M. Randomized controlled clinical trial of colchicine in the long term treatment of liver cirrhosis [EASL abstract]. Journal of Hepatology1990;11(Suppl 2):S12. CENTRAL

Cacciatore 2014 {published data only}

Cacciatore G, Marcolongo R, Gazzola M. [The ICAP study]. Giornale Italiano di Cardiologia 2014;15:393-6. CENTRAL

Campollo 2001 {published data only}

Campollo O, Cervantes G, Cerda-Camacho F de J, Segura JE, Sanchez H, Lopez R. Soybean lecithin versus colchicine for the treatment of alcoholic liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Interim report. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2001;34:698a. CENTRAL

Cetin 2013 {published data only}

Cetin GY, Sayarlioglu H, Orhan O, Pehlivan Y, Balkarli A, Sagliker HS, et al. Evaluation of the factors affecting colchicum resistance, treatment adherence and accuracy of diagnosis in colchicum resistant familial mediterranean fever (FMF) patients. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease 2012;71(Suppl 3):707. CENTRAL

Coatney 1949 {published data only}

Coatney HR, Cooper WC, Ruhe DS, Young MD. Studies in human malaria; trials of quinacrine, colchicine (SN 12,080) and quinine against Chesson strain vivax malaria. American Journal of Hygiene 1949;50:194-9. CENTRAL

Cohen 1991 {published data only}

Cohen AB, Girard W, McLarty J, Starcher B, Davis D, Stevens M, et al. A controlled trial of colchicine to reduce the elastase load in the lungs of ex-cigarette smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. American Review of Respiratory Disease 1991;143(5 Pt 1):1038-43. CENTRAL

Collins 1991 {published data only}

Collins JC, Morecki R, McPhillips J, Gartner L. Colchicine treatment of chronic cholestatic neonatal-onset liver disease [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1991;14:184a. CENTRAL

Cortez Pinto 1992 {published data only}

Cortez Pinto H, Alexandrino P, Santos PM, Alves MM, Camilo ME, Moura MC. Colchicine in alcoholic cirrhosis - preliminary results of a double-blind randomized trial [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1992;16(2 (Pt 2)):229a. CENTRAL

Cortez Pinto 1994 {published data only}

Cortez Pinto H, Serejo F, Camilo ME, Alexandrino P, Santos PM, Alves MM, et al. Colchicine in alcoholic cirrhosis - preliminary results of a double-blind randomized trial [abstract]. Gut1994;35(Suppl 4):A20. CENTRAL

Cortez Pinto 2000 {published data only}

Cortez Pinto H, Alexandrino P, Camilo ME, Couveia-Oliveira A, Santos PM, Alves MM, et al. Lack of effect of Colchicine in alcoholic cirrhosis: Final results of a double-blind randomized trial [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)2000;32:423a. CENTRAL

Cumetti 2012 {published data only}

Cumetti D, Maestroni S, Di Corato P, Ghidoni S, Alari G, Bonelli M, et al. Colchicine halves but does not eliminate recurrences in pericarditis: COlchicine for Recurrent Pericarditis (CORP). Italian Journal of Medicine 2012;6:41. CENTRAL

Davatchi 2009 {published data only}

Davatchi F, Sadeghi Abdollahi B, Tehrani Banihashemi A, Shahram F, Nadji A, Shams H, et al. Colchicine versus placebo in Behçet's disease: randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial. Modern Rheumatology / the Japan Rheumatism Association2009;19(5):542-9. CENTRAL

De Abreu 2009 {published data only}

De Abreu MA, Hirata CH, Pimentel DR, Weckx LL. Treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis with clofazimine. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics 2009;108(5):714-21. CENTRAL

Deftereos 2014b {published data only}

Deftereos S, Giannopoulos G, Efremidis M, Kossyvakis C, Katsivas A, Panagopoulou V, et al. Colchicine for prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation: mid-term efficacy and effect on quality of life. Heart Rhythm 2014;11(4):620-8. CENTRAL

De Maria 1996 {published data only}

De Maria N, Colantoni A, Rosenbloom E, Van Thiel DH. Ursodeoxycholic acid does not improve the clinical course of primary sclerosing cholangitis over a 2-year period. Hepatogastroenterology 1996;43(12):1472-9. CENTRAL

Dinarello 1974 {published data only}

Dinarello CA, Wolff SM, Goldfinger SE. Colchicine therapy for familial mediterranean fever. A double blind trial. New England Journal of Medicine 1974;291(18):934-7. CENTRAL

Dinarello 1976 {published data only}

Dinarello CA, Chusid MJ, Fauci AS, Gallin JI, Dale DC, Wolff SM. Effect of prophylactic colchicine therapy on leukocyte function in patients with familial Mediterranean fever. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1976;19(3):618-22. CENTRAL

Ediz 2012 {published data only}

Ediz L, Tekeoglu I. Symptom modifying effect of colchicine in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine 2012;3:63-7. CENTRAL

El‐Sherif 1999 {published data only}

El-Sherif AK, Mahrous GN, Khedr MS. Colchicine versus placebo in Behçet's disease: randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial [abstract]. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation1999;14(9):A230. CENTRAL

El‐Zahaar 1995 {published data only}

El-Zahaar MS. The Egyptian experience in the use of colchicine in lumbar disc disease. Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic Medicine and Surgery 1995;16:147-52. CENTRAL

English 1983 {published data only}

English JS, Fenton DA, Wilkinson JD. Failure of colchicine for palmo-plantar pustulosis. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 1983;8(2):207-8. CENTRAL

Erden 2011 {published data only}

Erden M, Hiz O, Ediz L, Ozkol H, Tuluce Y. The effect of colchicine treatment in knee osteoarthritis on malondialdehyde, antioxidant capacity and disease A activity: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Turkiye Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 2011;57:302. CENTRAL

Filipowicz‐Sosnowska 1990 {published data only}

Filipowicz-Sosnowska A, Jessen Dudzinska E. Treatment of amyloidosis with azathioprine or colchicine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology1990;85:49. CENTRAL

Fish 1997 {published data only}

Fish JE, Peters SP, Chambers CV, McGeady SJ, Epstein KR, Boushey HA, et al. An evaluation of colchicine as an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids in moderate asthma.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Asthma Clinical Research Network. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1997;156(4 Pt 1):1165-71. CENTRAL

Floreani 2001 {published data only}

Floreani A, Colloredo G, Lobello S, Di Marco M, Popovic A, Naccarato R. Preliminary results of a two-center trial with colchicine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2001;96(12):3451-2. CENTRAL

Frayha 1979 {published data only}

Frayha RA. Colchicine therapy in scleroderma. Preliminary results. Dermatologica 1979;159(1):78-81. CENTRAL

Gianni 2012 {published data only}

Gianni F, Solbiati M, Gruppo di Autoformazione Metodologica (GrAM). Colchicine is safe and effective for secondary prevention of recurrent pericarditis. Internal and Emergency Medicine 2012;7(2):181-2. CENTRAL

Giudice 1988 {published data only}

Giudice VW. The treatment of proven recalcitrant herniated disks with colchicine. Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic Medicine and Surgery1988;9:21-4. CENTRAL

Goddard 1995 {published data only}

Goddard CJR, Smith A, Hunt L, Halder T, Hillier V, Rowan B, et al. Surrogate markers of response in a trial of ursodeoxycholic acid (UD A) and colchicine in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) [abstract]. Gut1995;36:A30. CENTRAL

Goldfinger 2014 {published data only}

Goldfinger S. A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(8):780. CENTRAL

Goldstein 1974 {published data only}

Goldstein RC, Schwabe AD. Prophylactic colchicine therapy in familial Mediterranean fever. A controlled, double-blind study. Annals of Internal Medicine 1974;81(6):792-4. CENTRAL

Goulet 2001 {published data only}

Goulet P, Pérusse R. Efficacy of colchicine in the symptomatic treatment of oral lichen planus [abstract]. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics2001;91:436. CENTRAL

Grimaitre 1999 {published data only}

Grimaitre M. Treatment of solar keratoses of the scalp with topical colchicine. Abstract 7. Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 1999;199:80. CENTRAL

Gultepe 1994 {published data only}

Gultepe M, Ozcan A, Altin M, Ozturk G, Demirci M. Evaluation of the response of hepatic fibrosis to colchicine treatment by estimating serum prolidase activity and procollagen III aminoterminal propeptide levels. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 1994;20:99-104. CENTRAL

Hadzic 2005 {published data only}

Hadzic N, Davenport M, Tizzard S, Howard ER, Mowat AP, Mieli-Vergani G. Double-blind randomized trial of colchicine in biliary atresia: long-term clinical outcome. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition2005;40:627-8. CENTRAL

Hamuryudan 2010a {published data only}

Hamuryudan V, Hatemi G, Tascilar K, Sut N, Ozyazgan Y, Seyahi E, et al. Prognosis of Behcet's syndrome among men with mucocutaneous involvement at disease onset: long-term outcome of patients enrolled in a controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 2010;49(1):173-7. CENTRAL

Hamuryudan 2010b {published data only}

Hamuryudan V, Hatemi G, Yurdakul S, Mat C, Tascilar K, Ozyazgan Y, et al. Colchicine does not decrease the need for immunosuppressive use at long term in behet's syndrome. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2010;62:1288. CENTRAL

Hamuryudan 2011 {published data only}

Hamuryudan V, Hatemi G, Yurdakul S, Mat C, Tascilar K, Ozyazgan Y, et al. Colchicine does not decrease the need for immunosuppressive use at long term in Behcet's syndrome. Rheumatology (United Kingdom) 2011;50:ii16. CENTRAL

Hamuryudan 2014 {published data only}

Hamuryudan V, Hatemi G, Tascilar K, Yurdakul S, Mat C, Ozyazgan Y, et al. Colchicine in Behçet syndrome: a longterm survey of patients in a controlled trial. Journal of Rheumatology 2014;41(4):735-8. CENTRAL

Hatziioannidou 1992 {published data only}

Hatziioannidou A, Cheesman P, Trivedi P, Portmann B, Howard ER, Mowat AP, et al. Double blind controlled trial of colchicine versus placebo in extra hepatic biliary atresia: interim results [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1992;16:62a. CENTRAL

Huet 1996a {published data only}

Huet PM, Huet J, Deslauriers J. Long-term ursodeoxychlic acid (UDCA) and colchicine (C) treatment in primary biliara cirrhosis (PBC): effect on hepatic function and portal hypertension [abstract]. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology1996;10:S47. CENTRAL

Huet 1996b {published data only}

Huet PM, Huet J, Poupon RE, Deslauriers J. The combination of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and colchicine (C) for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC): effect on hepatic function and portal hypertension [IASL abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1996;23:I-49. CENTRAL

Imazio 2003 {published data only}

Imazio M, Demichelis B, Cecchi E, Gaschino G, Demarie D, Ghisio A, et al. Is colchicine the initial mode of treatment for acute pericarditis?European Heart Journal2003;24:250. CENTRAL

Imazio 2005 {published data only}

Imazio M, Bobbio M, Cecchi E, Demarie D, Demichelis B, Pomari F, et al. Colchicine in addition to conventional therapy for acute pericarditis: results of the COlchicine for acute PEricarditis (COPE) trial. Circulation 2005;112(13):2012-6. CENTRAL

Imazio 2010 {published data only}

Imazio M, Trinchero R, Brucato A, Rovere ME, Gandino A, Cemin R, et al. COlchicine for the Prevention of the Post-pericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS): a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. European Heart Journal 2010;31(22):2749-54. CENTRAL

Imazio 2011a {published data only}

Imazio M. Adding colchicine to standard therapy after cardiac surgery reduced risk for the postpericardiotomy syndrome. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011;154:JC2-10. CENTRAL

Imazio 2011b {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Ferrazzi P, Rovere ME, Gandino A, Cemin R, et al. Colchicine reduces postoperative atrial fibrillation: results of the Colchicine for the Prevention of the Postpericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) atrial fibrillation substudy. Circulation 2011;124(21):2290-5. CENTRAL

Imazio 2011c {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Ferrazzi P, Rovere ME, Gandino A, Cemin R, et al. Colchicine reduces post-operative atrial fibrillation. Results of the COPPS atrial fibrillation study. Circulation 2011;124:2371. CENTRAL

Imazio 2011d {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Gandino A, Rovere ME, Cemin R, Ferrua S, et al. Colchicine prevents early post-operative pericardial and pleural effusions. European Heart Journal 2011;32:597. CENTRAL

Imazio 2011e {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Rovere ME, Gandino A, Cemin R, Ferrua S, et al. Colchicine prevents early postoperative pericardial and pleural effusions. American Heart Journal 2011;162(3):527-32.e1. CENTRAL

Imazio 2012a {published data only}

Imazio M. Colchicine reduces post-operative atrial fibrillation: Results of the colchicine for prevention of the post-pericardiotomy syndrome post-operative atrial fibrillation (COPPS-POAF) study. European Heart Journal 2012;33:145. CENTRAL

Imazio 2012b {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Cemin R. Colchicine reduced further recurrence after a first recurrence of pericarditis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;156:JC2-4. CENTRAL

Imazio 2013 {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Cemin R, Ferrua S, Maggiolini S, Belli R, et al. Colchicine for acute pericarditis. Results from the Investigation on Colchicine in Acute Pericarditis (ICAP). A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. European Heart Journal 2013;34:167-8. CENTRAL

Imazio 2014a {published data only}

Imazio M, Belli R, Brucato A, Cemin R, Ferrua S, Beqaraj F, et al. Efficacy and safety of colchicine for treatment of multiple recurrences of pericarditis (CORP-2): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet 2014;383:2232-7. CENTRAL

Imazio 2014b {published data only}

Imazio M, Brucato A, Ferrazzi P, Pullara A, Adler Y, Barosi A, et al. Colchicine for prevention of postpericardiotomy syndrome and postoperative atrial fibrillation: the COPPS-2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312(10):1016-23. CENTRAL

Iona 2014 {published data only}

Iona I. Ant-inflammatory treatment with colchicine in stable chronic heart failure: A prospective, randomized study. European Heart Journal 2014;35:722. CENTRAL

Jones 2000 {published data only}

Jones G, Crotty M, Brooks P. Interventions for psoriatic arthritis. [German] Interventionen bei arthritis psoriatica. Praxis 2000;89:732. CENTRAL

Judkins 2011 {published data only}

Judkins C, Thompson P, Nidorf M, McQuillan B. LoDoCo: LOw DOse COlchicine in stable coronary artery disease and the effect on hs-CRP and brachial flow mediated dilation. Heart, Lung, and Circulation 2011;20:S36. CENTRAL

Kaplan 1985 {published data only}

Kaplan MM, Alling DW, Wolfe HJ, Zimmerman HJ. Colchicine is effective in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1985;5:967. CENTRAL

Kaplan 1987 {published data only}

Kaplan MM, Alling DW, Zimmerman HJ, Wolfe HJ, Sepersky RA, Hirsch GE, et al. A prospective trial of colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis. Acta Gastro-enterologica Belgica1987;50:382. CENTRAL

Kaplan 1993 {published data only}

Kaplan M, Schmid C, McKusick A, Provenzale D, Sharma A, Sepe T. Double blind trial of methotrexate (MTX) versus colchicine (COLCH) in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) [abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1993;18:176a. CENTRAL

Kar 1988 {published data only}

Kar HK, Roy RG. Comparison of colchicine and aspirin in the treatment of type 2 lepra reaction. Leprosy Review 1988;59(3):201-3. CENTRAL

Karaaslan 2014 {published data only}

Karaaslan Y, Simsek I. A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(8):780-1. CENTRAL

Kelly 1995 {published data only}

Kelly SJ, Uri AJ, Freeland HS, Woods EJ, Schulman ES, Peters SP, et al. Effects of colchicine on IgE-mediated early and late airway reactions. Chest 1995;107(4):985-91. CENTRAL

Kershenobich 1979 {published data only}

Kershenobich D, Uribe M, Suárez G I, Mata JM, Pérez-Tamayo R, Rojkind M. Treatment of cirrhosis with colchicine. A double-blind randomized trial. Gastroenterology 1979;77(3):532-6. CENTRAL

Kershenobich 1980 {published data only}

Kershenobich D, Pérez-Tamayo R, Garcia Tsao G, Rojkind M. Colchicine treatment in advanced chronic active liver disease (CALD). Gastroenterology 1980;79:1073. CENTRAL

Kisand 1996 {published data only}

Kisand KE, Karvonen AL, Vuoristo M, Farkkila M, Lehtola J, Inkovaara J, et al. Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment lowers the serum level of antibodies against pyruvate dehydrogenase and influences their inhibitory capacity for the enzyme complex in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Journal of Molecular Medicine (Berlin, Germany) 1996;74(5):269-72. CENTRAL

Koyuncu 2009 {published data only}

Koyuncu H, Kaparov A, Karamehmetoglu SS. The efficacy of colchicine with combination of cold on pain, swelling, and function in treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Pain Practice 2009;9:156. CENTRAL

Kulkarni 2014 {published data only}

Kulkarni NS. Colchicine effective for first episode of acute pericarditis. American Family Physician 2014;89:226. CENTRAL

Kyle 1990 {published data only}

Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Garton JP, Greipp PR. Primary systemic amyloidosis (AL): a randomized trial of colchicine vs. melphalan and prednisone vs. melphalan, prednisone, and colchicine. Blood1990;76:358a. CENTRAL

Lenior 2001 {published data only}

Lenior G, Sernet-Gaudelus I, Laurans M, Descamps-Latschka B, Scherrmann JM, Duhamel JF, et al. Effect of colchicine in cystic fibrosis patients. Result of a Phase 2 therapeutical trial [abstract]. In: 24th European Cystic Fibrosis Conference; 2001 June 6-9; Vienna, Austria. 2001:Ws3. CENTRAL

Leung 2010 {published data only}

Leung J, Bonder A, Sasson M, Bonis P, Kaplan M. 19-year follow-up of patients in a double-blind trial of colchicine plus ursodiol versus methotrexate plus ursodiol in the treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2010;138:S218. CENTRAL

Leung 2011 {published data only}

Leung J, Bonis PA, Kaplan MM. Colchicine or methotrexate, with ursodiol, are effective after 20 years in a subset of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2011;9(9):776-80. CENTRAL

Liu 2002 {published data only}

Liu L, Luo ZM, He L, Zhang ZL, Li ZX, Peng SZ. [Multicentric randomized controlled trial of treatment of patients with acute cerebral infarction with cyclophosphamide and colchicine]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases2002;4:108-11. CENTRAL

Lu 2014 {published data only}

Lu YY, Chen YJ. A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis. New England Journal of Medicine 2014;370(8):780. CENTRAL

Luo 2001 {published data only}

Luo ZM, Yang L. A randomized controlled clinical trial of MgSO4 plus cyclophophamide and colchicine in patients suffered from acute cerebral infarction. Hong Kong Medical Journal2001;7:23. CENTRAL

Maestroni 2011 {published data only}

Maestroni S, Brucato A, Cumetti D, Scialfa S, Ghidoni S, Simon C, et al. Colchine for the prevention of the post-pericardiotomy syndrome (COPPS): A multicentre, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Italian Journal of Medicine 2011;5:62. CENTRAL

Maestroni 2013 {published data only}

Maestroni S, Cumetti D, Bonomi F, Di Corato PR, Valenti A, Maggiolini S, et al. The investigation on colchicine in acute pericarditis (ICAP). A clinical trial to treat acute pericarditis and prevent its recurrences by colchicine. Italian Journal of Medicine 2013;7:73. CENTRAL

Maestroni 2014 {published data only}

Maestroni S, Cumetti D, Valenti A, Di Corato PR, Romano M, Imazio M, et al. Efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with multiple recurrences of pericarditis: Results of a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study (CORP-2 trial). Italian Journal of Medicine 2014;8:74-5. CENTRAL

Mann 2014 {published data only}

Mann DL. Colchicine and the failing heart. A "FINER" anti-inflammatory agent? JACC. Heart Failure 2014;2(2):138-40. CENTRAL

Masuda 1989 {published data only}

Masuda K, Nakajima A, Urayama A, Nakae K, Kogure M, Inaba G. Double-masked trial of cyclosporin versus colchicine and long-term open study of cyclosporin in Behçet's disease. Lancet 1989;1(8647):1093-6. CENTRAL

Meek 1984 {published data only}

Meek JB, Giudice VW, Enrick NL. Colchicine highly effective in disk disorders. Results of a double-blind study. Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic Surgery 1984;5:213-20. CENTRAL

Meek 1985 {published data only}

Meek JB, Giudice VW, McFadden JW. Colchicine confirmed as highly effective in disk disorders. Final results of a double-blind study. Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic Medicine and Surgery 1985;6:211-8. CENTRAL

Meek 1990 {published data only}

Meek JB, Giudice VW, McFadden JW, Key Jr JD, Enrick NL. Colchicine confirmed as highly effective in disk disorders: Final results of an F.D.A.-approved double-blind study (FDA IND Number 21,807). Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic Medicine and Surgery 1990;11:305-12. CENTRAL

Miettinen 1993 {published data only}

Miettinen TA, Farkkila M, Vuoristo M, Karvonen AL, Leino R, Lehtola J. Improvement of serum noncholesterol sterols may indicate retarded progression of primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) in a randomized placebo controlled two-year trial with colchicine and urosdeoxycholic acid [abstract]. Hong Kong Medical Journal1993;104:A954. CENTRAL

Miettinen 1995 {published data only}

Miettinen TA, Farkkila M, Vuoristo M, Karvonen AL, Leino R, Lehtola J, et al. Serum cholestanol, cholesterol precursors, and plant sterols during placebo-controlled treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis with ursodeoxycholic acid or colchicine. Hepatology 1995;21:1261-8. CENTRAL

Mimura 2009 {published data only}

Mimura MA, Hirota SK, Sugaya NN, Sanches Jr JA, Migliari DA. Systemic treatment in severe cases of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: an open trial. Clinics (São Paulo, Brazil) 2009;64(3):193-8. CENTRAL

Mingxing 1983 {published data only}

Mingxing Zhou, Fangcen Lou, Baolong Chen. A preliminary report on the treatment of refractory hepatitis with colchicine. Chinese Journal of Infectious Diseases1983;1(Suppl 1):5-8. CENTRAL

Moon 2011 {published data only}

Moon KT. Low-dose colchicine effective for acute gout flare-ups. American Family Physician 2011;83:316. CENTRAL

NCT00004748 {published data only}

NCT00004748. Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of low-dose oral methotrexate vs colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis. www.clinicaltrials.gov . CENTRAL

Nidorf 2012 {published data only}

Nidorf SM, Eikelboom JW, Budgeon C, Thompson PL. Low dose colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease [LoDoCo]: A randomized controlled trial. Circulation 2012;126:2787. CENTRAL

Ozcelik 2014 {published data only}

Ozcelik C. CORP-2 study: Colchicine halves the risk for chronic recurrent pericarditis. [German] CORP-2-studie: Colchizin halbiert das risiko fur chronisch rezidivierende perikarditiden. Kardiologe 2014;8:285-7. CENTRAL

Podda 1993 {published data only}

Podda M, Almasio P, Battezzati PM, Crosignani A. Long-term effect of the administration of ursodeocycholic acid alone or with colchicine in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis: a double-blind multicentre study. In: Bile acids and the hepatobiliary system. From basic science to clinical practice. Proceedings of Falk Symposium 68th held in Basel, Switzerland, October 12-14, 1992. 1993:310-5. CENTRAL

Poupon 1994 {published data only}

Poupon RE, Niard AM, Huet PM, Miguet JP, Mathieu-Chandelier C, Doffoël M, et al. A randomized trial comparing the combination ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and colchicine to UDCA alone in primary biliary cirrhosis [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1994;20:151a. CENTRAL

Prieto 2003 {published data only}

Prieto Castro RM, Leva Vallejo ME, Regueiro Lopez JC, Anglada Curado FJ, Alvarez Kindelan J, Requena Tapia MJ. Combined treatment with vitamin E and colchicine in the early stages of Peyronie's disease. BJU International 2003;91(6):522-4. CENTRAL

Raedsch 1991a {published data only}

Raedsch R, Stiehl A, Walker S, Theilmann L, Kommerell B. [Influence of ursodeoxycholic acid and urso plus colchicine on primary biliary cirrhosis: a double blind controlled pilotstudy] [abstract]. Klinische Wochenschrift1991;69:84. CENTRAL

Raedsch 1991b {published data only}

Raedsch R, Stiehl A, Walker S, Theilmann L, Kommerell B. Effects of ursodeoxycholic acid and ursodeoxycholic acid plus colchicine in primary biliary cirrhosis: a double-blind pilot study. In: Bile acids as therapeutic agents. From basic science to clinical practice. Falk symposium 58. 1991:301-4. CENTRAL

Raedsch 1992b {published data only}

Raedsch R, Stiehl A, Walker S, Scherrmann J M, Kommerell B. [Combined ursodeoxycholic acid plus colchicine--treatment of primary biliary cirrhosis: results of a placebo-controlled double-blind study]. Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie 1992;30 Suppl 1:55-7. CENTRAL

Rask 1989 {published data only}

Rask MR. Colchicine use in 6000 patients with disk disease & other related resistantly-painful spinal disorders. Journal of Neurological and Orthopaedic Medicine and Surgery1989;10:291-8. CENTRAL

Roche 1995 {published data only}

Roche N, Lurie A, Authier S, Dusser D J. Nasal response to capsaicin in patients with allergic rhinitis and in healthy volunteers: effect of colchicine. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 1995;151(4):1151-8. CENTRAL

Rockey 2006 {published data only}

Rockey DC. Halt and reversal of fibrosis. Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2006;2:640-1. CENTRAL

Rubinow 1981 {published data only}

Rubinow A, Cohen AS, Kayne H, Libbey CA. Colchicine therapy in primary amyloidosis. A preliminary report. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1981;24:399. CENTRAL

Ruhe 1949 {published data only}

Ruhe DS, Cooper WC, Coatney GR, Josephson ES. Studies in human malaria. XIV. The ineffectiveness of colchicine (SN 12,080), SN 7,266 and SN 8,557 as curative agents against St. Elizabeth strain Vivax malaria. American Journal of Hygiene 1949;49(3):361-6. CENTRAL

Rutecki 2006 {published data only}

Rutecki GW. A novel way to reduce recurrences of acute pericarditis. Consultant 2006;46:460. CENTRAL

Sainz 1992 {published data only}

Sainz S, Guarner C, Villanueva C, Ordonez J, Sancho FJ, Enriquez J. Colchicine treatment in alcoholic liver disease A controlled and randomized study [EASL abstract]. Journal of Hepatology1992;16:S64. CENTRAL

Sais 1995a {published data only}

Sais G, Vidaller A, Jucglà A, Gallardo F, Peyrí J. Colchicine in the treatment of cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Results of a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Archives of Dermatology 1995;131(12):1399-402. CENTRAL

Schlesinger 2010a {published data only}

Schlesinger N, Lin H Y, De Meulemeester M, Nasonov E, Rovensky J, Arulmani U, et al. Efficacy of canakinumab (ACZ885) in the prevention of flares in gout patients initiating allopurinol therapy. NDT Plus 2010;3:iii3-4. CENTRAL

Schlesinger 2010b {published data only}

Schlesinger N, Lin HY, De Meulemeester M, Nasonov EL, Rovensky J, Mysler EF, et al. Efficacy of canakinumab (ACZ885), a fully human anti-interleukin (IL)-1beta monoclonal antibody, in the prevention of flares in gout patients initiating allopurinol therapy. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2010;62:2087. CENTRAL

Schlesinger 2011a {published data only}

Schlesinger N, Lin H, De Meulemeester M, Nasonov E, Rovensky J, Mysler E, et al. Efficacy of canakinumab (ACZ885), a fully human anti-interleukin-1beta monoclonal antibody, in the prevention of flares in gout patients initiating allopurinol therapy. Rheumatology 2011;50:iii85-6. CENTRAL

Schlesinger 2011b {published data only}

Schlesinger N, Mysler E, Lin H, DeMeulenmeester M, Rovensky J, Arulmani U, et al. Canakinumab reduces the risk of acute gouty arthritis flares during initiation of allopurinol therapy: Results of a double-blind, randomised study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011;127:AB227. CENTRAL

Schlesinger 2011c {published data only}

Schlesinger N, Rudolph L, Lin Taipei H, De Meulemeester M, Nasonov EL, Rovensky J, et al. Efficacy of canakinumab (acz885), a fully human anti-interleukin (IL)-1beta monoclonal antibody, in the prevention of flares in gout patients initiating allopurinol therapy. Journal of Investigative Medicine 2011;59:710-1. CENTRAL

Schwarz 1990 {published data only}

Schwarz YA, Kivity S, Ilfeld DN, Schlesinger M, Greif J, Topilsky M, et al. A clinical and immunologic study of colchicine in asthma. Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 1990;85(3):578-82. CENTRAL

Sernet‐Gaudelus 2001 {published data only}

Sernet-Gaudelus I, Laurans M, Duhamel JF, Witco V, Marianovski R, Feuillet MN, et al. Colchicine is effective and safe in cystic fibrosis patients [abstract]. Pediatric Pulmonology2001;Suppl 22:260. CENTRAL

Simmons 1990 {published data only}

Simmons JW, Harris WP, Koulisis CW, Kimmich SJ. Intravenous colchicine for low-back pain: a double-blind study. Spine 1990;15(7):716-7. CENTRAL

So 2010 {published data only}

So A, Lin HY, De Meulemeester M, Nasonov E, Rovensky J, Mysler E, et al. Canakinumab (ACZ885) versus colchicine in the prevention of flares in gout patients initiating allopurinol therapy. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases 2010;13:176. CENTRAL

Srivastava 2013 {published data only}

Srivastava R, Das SK, Goyal G. To study role of colchicine as disease modifying agent in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Indian Journal of Rheumatology 2013;8:S28. CENTRAL

Stamato 2006 {published data only}

Stamato FJ, Maciel RM, Manso PG, Wolosker AM, Paiva ER, Lopes AC, et al. Colchicine in the treatment of the inflammatory phase of Graves' ophthalmopathy: a prospective and randomized trial with prednisone. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2006;69(6):811-6. CENTRAL

Trande 1996 {published data only}

Trande P, Esposito P, Marchi S, Grottola A, Buttafoco P, Merighi A. Chronic active hepatitis (CAH) due to hepatitis C virus (HCV): a randomized trial of IFN±colchine [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1996;24:590a. CENTRAL

Trinchet 1983 {published data only}

Trinchet JC, Galet B, Beaugrand M, Callard P, Ferrier JP. [Treatment of the alcoholic hepatitis with colchicine. Preliminary results of a double-blind trial in 46 patients]. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique1983;7:103a. CENTRAL

Trinchet 1985 {published data only}

Trinchet JC, Beaugrand M, Ferrier JP, Galet B, Callard P, Hartmann D, et al. Treatment of active alcoholic liver disease (AADL) by colchicine: results of a 6 months double blind trial [EASL abstract]. Journal of Hepatology1985;1:S142. CENTRAL

Tzvetkova 1990 {published data only}

Tzvetkova V, Krastev Z, Naoumov N, Mateva L. Colchicine and ursofalk in the treatment of patients with biliary cirrhosis [abstract]. Journal of Internal Medicine. Supplement1990;733:71. CENTRAL

Vetter 2014 {published data only}

Vetter C. Pericardial sac inflammation: Colchicine lowers the risk of recurrences in patients with recurrent pericarditis. [German]. Deutsches Arzteblatt international2014;111:A798. CENTRAL

Wallace 1967 {published data only}

Wallace SI, Bernstein D, Diamond H. Diagnostic value of the colchicine therapeutic trial. JAMA 1967;199(8):525-8. CENTRAL

Wang 1992 {published data only}

Wang YJ, Lee SD, Tsai YT, Lo KJ. A controlled trial of colchicine in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related postnecrotic cirrhosis [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1992;16:68a. CENTRAL

Wang 2014 {published data only}

Wang Y, Wang L, Li E, Li Y, Wang Z, Sun X, et al. Chuanhu anti-gout mixture versus colchicine for acute gouty arthritis: a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial. International Journal of Medical Sciences 2014;11(9):880-5. CENTRAL

Warnes 1984 {published data only}

Warnes TW, Smith A, Lee F, Haboubi NY, Johnson J, Hunt L. A controlled trial of colchicine in primary biliary cirrhosis [AASLD abstract]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.)1984;4:1022. CENTRAL

Warnes 1985 {published data only}

Warnes T, Babbs C, Smith A, Lee F, Haboubi NY, Johnson PJ, et al. A controlled trial of colchicine in primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) [EASL abstract]. Journal of Hepatology1985;1:S348. CENTRAL

Wolff 1974 {published data only}

Wolff SM, Dinarello CA, Dale DC, Goldfinger SE, Alling DW. Colchicine therapy of familial Mediterranean fever. Transactions of the Association of American Physicians 1974;87:186-94. CENTRAL

Wright 1975 {published data only}

Wright DG, Wolff AS, Wolft SM. The efficacy of intermittent colchicine therapy in familial Mediterranean fever. Clinical Research 1975;23:418A. CENTRAL

Wu 1995 {published data only}

Wu CS, Sun HG, Wang S. The clinic observation of colchicine for palm ane metatarsus pustule (Chinese). Chinese Journal of Dermatovenereology1995;9:22-3. CENTRAL

Wu 2014 {published data only}

Wu YQ, Hu JH, Zhao ZY, Zhou C, Yu X, Zheng Y, et al. Clinical observation on senile patients with acute gouty arthritis treated by acupoint application. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014;62:S335–95. CENTRAL

Xu 1999 {published data only}

Xu YM, Luo ZM, He L, Peng R, Zhou D. Clinical randomized controlled trial of patients with acute cerbral infarction treated with cyclophosphamide and colchicine. West China Medical Journal1999;14:23-6. CENTRAL

Yang 2010 {published data only}

Yang LP. Oral colchicine (Colcrys): in the treatment and prophylaxis of gout. Drugs 2010;70(12):1603-13. CENTRAL

Zemer 1974 {published data only}

Zemer D, Revach M, Pras M, Modan B, Schor S, Sohar E, et al. A controlled trial of colchicine in preventing attacks of familial mediterranean fever. New England Journal of Medicine 1974;291(18):932-4. CENTRAL

Zifroni 1991 {published data only}

Zifroni A, Schaffner F. Long-term follow-up of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis on colchicine therapy. Hepatology 1991;14(6):990-3. CENTRAL

Sais 1995b {published data only}

Sais G, Vidaller A, Jucglà A, Peyrí J. Treatment of cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis with colchicine. Results from a prospective and randomized controlled study. Annals de Medicina1995;81:51. CENTRAL

ACTRN12614000093684 {published data only}

ACTRN12614000093684. The LoDoCo2 Trial: Low Dose Colchicine for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease [LoDoCo2]. www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12614000093684 (accessed 16 March 2015). CENTRAL

IRCT138807112539N1 {published data only}

IRCT138807112539N1. A comparative evaluation of combination therapy of Lamivudine and Colchicine comparing with Lamivudine and placebo in clinical and laboratory improvement of chronic hepatitis B. www.irct.ir/searchresult.php?id=2539&number=1 (accessed 5 January 2016). CENTRAL

NCT01906749 {published data only}NCT01906749

NCT01906749. Colchicine for Acute Coronary Syndromes. A multicenter double blind randomized trial [COACS]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01906749 (accessed 16 March 2015). CENTRAL

NCT02035891 {published data only}NCT02035891

NCT02035891. Low-dose colchicine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria [CQMU-2013-QLi]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02035891 (accessed 5 January 2016). CENTRAL

NCT02162303 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}NCT02162303

NCT02162303. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to vvaluate the effects of colchicine on vascular inflammation as assessed with positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease (COLPET). clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02162303 (accessed 16 March 2015). CENTRAL

Alabed 2014

Alabed S, Cabello JB, Irving GJ, Qintar M, Burls A. Colchicine for pericarditis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010652.pub2]

Bradburn 2007

Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Statistics in Medicine Jan 15 2007;26(1):53-77.

Carr 1997

Carr SC, Farb A, Pearce WH, Virmani R, Yao JS. Activated inflammatory cells are associated with plaque rupture in carotid artery stenosis. Surgery 1997;122(4):757-63.

Cocco 2010

Cocco G, Chu DC, Pandolfi S. Colchicine in clinical medicine. A guide for internists. European Journal of Internal Medicine 2010;21(6):503-8.

Cronstein 2006

Cronstein BN, Terkeltaub R. The inflammatory process of gout and its treatment. Arthritis Research and Therapy 2006;8 Suppl 1:S3.

DerSimonian 1986

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177-88.

Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration 2010

Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, Kaptoge S, Di Angelantonio E, Lowe G, Pepys MB, Thompson SG, Collins R, et al. C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. Lancet 2010;375(9709):132-40.

FDA 2013

Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Volume 5. Part 312 Subpart B - Investigational New Drug Application (IND). Sec. 312.32 IND safety reporting. Revised as of April 1, 2013.

Gong 2004

Gong Y, Gluud C. Colchicine for primary biliary cirrhosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004481.pub2]

Hentgen 2013

Hentgen V, Grateau G, Kone-Paut I, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for the practical management of Familial Mediterranean Fever. Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism 2013;43(3):387-91.

Higgins 2003

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557-60.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Imazio 2012c

Imazio M, Brucato A, Forno D, Ferro S, Belli R, Trinchero R, et al. Efficacy and safety of colchicine for pericarditis prevention. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart 2012;98(14):1078-82.

Imazio 2014c

Imazio M, Brucato A, Belli R, et al. Colchicine for the prevention of pericarditis: what we know and what we do not know in 2014 - systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) 2014;15(12):840-6.

Ioannidis 2007

Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ 2007;335(7626):914-6.

Ioannidis 2010

Ioannidis JP, Karassa FB. The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence. BMJ 2010;341:c4875.

Lau 1997

Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997;127(9):820-6.

Lefebvre 2011

Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Libby 2013

Libby P. Mechanisms of acute coronary syndromes and their implications for therapy. New England Journal of Medicine 2013;368(21):2004-13.

Nidorf 2007

Nidorf M, Thompson PL. Effect of colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily) on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein independent of aspirin and atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary artery disease. American Journal of Cardiology 2007;99(6):805-7.

Niel 2006

Niel E, Scherrmann JM. Colchicine today. Joint, Bone, Spine: Revue du Rhumatisme 2006;73(6):672-8.

Pitrou 2009

Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Archives of internal medicine 2009;169(19):1756-61.

Raju 2012

Raju NC, Yi Q, Nidorf M, Fagel ND, Hiralal R, Eikelboom JW. Effect of colchicine compared with placebo on high sensitivity C-reactive protein in patients with acute coronary syndrome or acute stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 2012;33(1):88-94.

Rambaldi 2005

Rambaldi A, Gluud C. Colchicine for alcoholic and non-alcoholic liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002148]

Raval 2015

Raval J, Nagaraja V, Eslick GD, Denniss AR. The role of colchicine in pericarditis - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Heart, Lung & Circulation 2015;24(7):660-6.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane CollaborationReview Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Rodnan 1970

Rodnan GP, Benedek TG. The early history of antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1970;13(2):145-65.

Schlesinger 2004

Schlesinger N. Management of acute and chronic gouty arthritis: present state-of-the-art. Drugs 2004;64(21):2399-416.

Schlesinger 2006

Schlesinger N, Schumacher R, Catton M, Maxwell L. Colchicine for acute gout. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006190]

Shah 2003

Shah PK. Mechanisms of plaque vulnerability and rupture. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2003;41(4 Suppl S):15S-22S.

Shah 2009

Shah PK. Inflammation and plaque vulnerability. Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy 2009;23(1):31-40.

Terkeltaub 2009

Terkeltaub RA. Colchicine update: 2008. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 2009;38(6):411-9.

Terkeltaub 2010

Terkeltaub RA, Furst DE, Bennett K, Kook KA, Crockett RS, Davis MW. High versus low dosing of oral colchicine for early acute gout flare: Twenty-four-hour outcome of the first multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-comparison colchicine study. Arthritis and Rheumatism 2010;62(4):1060-8.

Trivedi 2014

Trivedi C, Sadadia M. Colchicine in prevention of atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian Journal of Pharmacology 2014;46(6):590-5.

Van Echteld 2014

Van Echteld I, Wechalekar MD, Schlesinger N, Buchbinder R, Aletaha D. Colchicine for acute gout. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006190.pub2]

Verma 2015

Verma S, Eikelboom JW, Nidorf SM, Al-Omran M, Gupta N, Teoh H, et al. Colchicine in cardiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2015;15:96.

WHO 2011

World Health Organization. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2010. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.

Wu 2015

Wu B, Xu T, Li Y, Yin X. Interventions for reducing inflammation in familial Mediterranean fever. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010893.pub2]

Hemkens 2014a

Hemkens LG, Gloy VL, Olu KK, Nordmann AJ, Briel M. Colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011047]

Hemkens 2014b

Hemkens L, Gloy V, Olu K, Nordmann A, Briel M. Colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015017733.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Adhami 1998

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Pseudo‐randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 11 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 52. 29 colchicine. 23 control

Condition: Ascitic cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age mean (SD) in years: colchicine 54.27 (14.27). control 54.21 (15.04)

Sex (women): 13%

Inclusion criteria: "The trial included 52 ascitic cirrhotic patients."

Exclusion criteria: "According to Kershenobich the patients were excluded if they had evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding or of encephalopathy during a period of two weeks before the trial."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d 5d/week

  • Duration: "Colchicine treatment, according to need, was given from 4 to 84 months on average 27.63±20.54 months, while the Placebo was given 0.75 to 36.25 months, on average 11.63±11.42 months."

Control:

  • Dose: placebo

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "the goal is to determine the role of colchicine in the survival of cirrhotic patients. This is thought to occur by decreasing hepatic fibrosis and decrease of portal hypertension."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Randomisation according to odd/even age

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Pharmacy supplied drugs and kept identity of drugs confidential

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"neither staff, nor the patients knew the drug used", double‐blind

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Analysis unclear; 13% missing data reported for control group ‐ imbalance to colchicine group might cause bias

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Almasio 2000

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (6 centres, 2 centres in substudy)

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 3 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 90. 46 colchicine, 44 control. (Substudy: Total 44. colchicine 22, control 22)

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Italy

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 55.5 (10.9), control 53.3 (10.2). (Substudy: colchicine 55 (11), control 58 (10))

Sex (women): Colchicine 87%, control 93% (Substudy: colchicine 86, control 86)

Inclusion criteria: "The criteria for entry into the trial were: an established diagnosis of primary biliary cirrhosis according to Taal et al.; symptomatic disease as defined by presence of pruritus (severe enough to necessitate therapy); and/or serum bilirubin higher than 2 mg/dl; and/or histological or clinical diagnosis of cirrhosis. Patients were included regardless of the duration of symptoms or the stage."

Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria were: advanced liver disease (ascites, encephalopathy, portal hypertensive bleeding, bilirubin >10 mg/dl); hepatocellular carcinoma; any concomitant immunosuppressive treatment; evidence of other major diseases unrelated to primary biliary cirrhosis; alcohol abuse; and low compliance. Treatment with cholestyramine, antihistamines, H₂‐blockers or proton‐pump inhibitors, calcium supplementation and liposoluble vitamins was allowed."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Plus 500 mg/d ursodeoxycholic acid

  • Duration: 3 years

Control:

  • Placebo plus ursodeoxycholic acid 500 mg/d

  • Duration: 3 year

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "In order to evaluate the efficacy of the two therapeutic regimens, we analysed clinical, biochemical and histological end‐points. We considered as ‘treatment failure’ the occurrence of any of the following events: death, liver transplantation, decompensation of cirrhosis, doubling of serum bilirubin"

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Substudy results are reported from 2 of 6 centres (with separate randomisation) with longer follow‐up. We used the main study results for our analyses. Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"The randomization was performed by a central study unit using the same randomized blocks separately for each centre"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Central randomization

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

ITT; ≤ 10% missing data per group

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Antoniou 2006

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (8 centres)

Blinding: Open‐label

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 25 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 50. 18 colchicine, 32 control.

Condition: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: outpatient

Country: Greece

Age median (range) in years: Colchicine 69 (54 ‐ 85), control 66 (42 ‐ 82)

Sex (women): 16%

Inclusion criteria: "Eligible patients were aged 40–80 yrs, had shown clinical symptoms of IPF for ≥3 months, and had a forced vital capacity (FVC) of ≥55% and ≤90% of the predicted value, a transfer factor of the lung for carbon monoxide (TL,CO) of ≥35% pred and an arterial oxygen tension (Pa,O₂ ) of >7.3 kPa while breathing room air at rest."

Exclusion criteria: "Criteria for exclusion were a significant history of exposure to organic or inorganic dust or drugs known to cause pulmonary fibrosis and connective tissue disease or other chronic lung diseases causing pulmonary fibrosis, a ratio of the forced expiratory volume in one second to FVC of <0.6 after bronchodilator use, a residual volume of >120% pred, active infection within 1 week before enrolment, unstable cardiovascular or neurological disease, uncontrolled diabetes, pregnancy, lactation, any active malignancy likely to result in death or any condition other than IPF likely to result in death within 3 yrs."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Plus prednisolone 10 mg/d

  • Duration: 15 months median duration (range 5 – 44 months), intended 24 months

Control:

  • IFN‐c 1b 200 mg 3 x / week subcutaneously plus prednisolone 10 mg/d

  • Duration: 20 months median duration (range 2 – 44 months), intended 24 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "The study was originally designed to investigate the molecular perspective after both treatment regimens. [...] The study did not have prespecified end‐points. [...] The study objectives were to compare the clinical effects of the two treatment regimens after 6, 12 and 24 months of therapy using: pulmonary function tests (FVC, total lung capacity (TLC), TL,CO and Pa,O2 at rest), the extent of lung fibrosis on high‐resolution computed tomography (HRCT), quality of life (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)), treatment outcome (using the ATS/ERS criteria), and overall survival."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, non‐scheduled hospitalisation

Notes

"supported by an unrestricted grant from Boehringer Ingelheim Hellas (Athens, Greece) and the Society for Pulmonary and Intensive Care Research in the district of East Macedonia and Thrace (Alexandrou´polis, Greece). The Greek National Health System supported both colchicine and interferon gamma‐1b."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Randomisation was performed using a random number table."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open trial

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

"Two readers, blinded to the clinical functional data and type of treatment, examined the HRCT images"; however, we do not measure the outcomes related to the HRCT images; no other blinding reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

In total, 17 (11 in the IFN‐c‐1b group and 6 in the colchicine group) of the 50 participants discontinued treatment before 24 months. Of the 11 participants in the IFN‐c‐1b group, 8 stopped because of an adverse event and/or disease progression and 3 for social reasons. Of the colchicine group, 6 participants withdrew; 2 stopped because of disease progression and 4 for social reasons. In addition, median follow‐up was longer (median 5 months) in control group than in colchicine group

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

"The study was originally designed to investigate the molecular perspective after both treatment regimens. Owing to technical difficulties, this aim was only investigated in a subgroup of 10 patients (data not shown). The study did not have prespecified end‐points."

Bodenheimer 1988

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 26 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 57. Colchicine 28 control 29

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 53 (not reported), control 51 (not reported)

Sex (women): Colchicine 93%, control 90%

Inclusion criteria: "History of chronic cholestatic liver disease and liver biopsy results compatible with PBC were entered into the study. Fifty‐one of our patients were followed at Mount Sinai Medical."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Duration: mean 33 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: mean 33 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • To test the safety of long‐term colchicine administration

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Endpoint mortality (extracted from Bodenheimer 1985) reported only for 26 months. Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

"The liver histology was reviewed without knowledge of the clinical status or the drug the patient was receiving." However, we did not look into liver outcomes, so the blinding remains unclear

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Unbalanced attrition and missing reporting: in the abstract from 1985, Bodenheimer et al report 39% attrition in colchicine group and 24% in the control group at 26 weeks follow‐up. In their publication from 1988, they report 29% attrition in colchicine and 21% in the control group at a mean follow‐up of 33 months.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Buligescu 1989

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Not reported

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 36 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 180. Colchicine 100, placebo 80

Condition: Liver cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age: Not reported

Sex (women): Not reported

Inclusion criteria: Liver cirrhosis

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1.0 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 ‐ 36 months. Mean 17.4 months

Control:

  • "Conventional therapy"

  • Duration: 6 ‐ 36 months. Mean 17.4 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Clinical improvement of liver cirrhosis markers

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

This study is reported only as an abstract.
Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear, no withdrawal reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Only abstract, objectives unclear

Colman 1998

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: mean 45 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 129. Colchicine 63, control 66

Condition: Alcoholic cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age: Not reported

Sex (women): Not reported

Inclusion criteria: People with alcoholic cirrhosis

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Duration: mean follow‐up 45.3 months (range 1 ‐ 106)

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: mean follow‐up 45.3 months (range 1 ‐ 106)

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Overall survival and liver‐related death

  • Effect on the natural history of chronic alcoholic liver disease or liver‐related complications

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

This study is only reported as an abstract.
Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers)

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not specified

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

From initially 129 participants: 41 died, another 41 were withdrawn (26 did not comply, 10 had adverse events, 5 for geographic reasons)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Abstract only; no protocol reported

Copilot

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Unclear

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 555. Colchicine 269, control 286

Condition: HCV with advanced liver disease

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Not reported

Country: Unclear

Age mean (SD) in years: mean 51 (not reported)

Sex (women): 30%

Inclusion criteria: "IFN failures with Ishak stage 3−6" and "Study patients had no evidence of liver decompensation or HCV (liver cancer); Ishak Fibrosis stage 3 or more; HIV & HbeAg negative."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Duration: 4 years ("49% of patients discontinued medication over 4 years")

Control:

  • Peg‐Interferon‐alpha 0.5 μg/kg/w

  • Duration: 4 years ("49% of patients discontinued medication over 4 years")

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • All‐cause mortality, liver failure, transplant, variceal bleeding and HCC

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, adverse events (any) at 2 years follow‐up

Notes

This study was reported as an abstract only.
Outcomes from Afdhal 2008 not included in analysis because group assignment unclear. Funding not reported but 1 or more of the authors with pharmaceutical industry affiliation

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers)

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT; dropouts were censored; unclear how many dropouts

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Abstract only; results from secondary endpoints not described

CORE

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Open‐label

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 20 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 84. Colchicine 42, control 42

Condition: Recurrent pericarditis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Italy

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 56.4 ± 16.9 control 51.2 ± 16.3

Sex (women): Colchicine 62%, control 69%

Inclusion criteria: "Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of recurrent pericarditis (first episode); previous idiopathic, viral, and autoimmune etiologies (including postpericardiotomy syndromes and connective tissue diseases) of the first episode of acute pericarditis; 18 years or older; and informed consent."

Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria were tuberculous, neoplastic, or purulent etiologies of the first episode; known severe liver disease or current transaminase levels greater than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal; a current serum creatinine level greater than 2.5 mg/dL (221 µmol/L); known myopathy or a current serum creatine kinase level greater than the upper limit of normal; known blood dyscrasias or gastrointestinal disease; pregnant and lactating women or women of child bearing potential not protected by a contraception method; known hypersensitivity to colchicine; and current treatment with colchicine for any indication."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 ‐ 2 mg the first day, maintenance dose of 0.5 ‐ 1.0 mg/d

  • < 70 kg or intolerant to higher dose: 1 x 1.0 mg then maintenance dose 1 x 0.5 mg/d; ≥ 70 kg: 2 x 1.0 mg then maintenance dose 2 x 0.5 mg/d

  • Plus Aspirin, 800 mg every 6 or 8 hours for 7 ‐ 10 days, with gradual tapering for 3 ‐ 4 weeks

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Aspirin, 800 mg every 6 or 8 hours for 7 ‐ 10 days, with gradual tapering for 3 ‐ 4 weeks

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "to verify the safety and efficacy of colchicine therapy as an adjunct to conventional therapy for the first episode of recurrence of pericarditis and to verify whether the natural history of the disease may change because of the early use of colchicine"

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Adverse events (any), serious adverse events

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified ("Randomization was based on permuted blocks, with a block size of 4.")

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open‐label

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"The validation of clinical events was ensured by an ad hoc committee of expert cardiologists blinded to patient treatment assignment", "data analyses were performed by an external data analysis committee masked to treatment assignment"

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT, but "clinical follow‐up data were available in all patients for a mean of 20 months (range, 8‐44 months)"

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

CORP

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (4 centres)

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 120. Colchicine 60, control 60

Condition: Recurrent pericarditis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Italy

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 47.3 (14.4), control 47.9 (15.4)

Sex (women): Colchicine 57%, control 52%

Inclusion criteria: "Inclusion criteria were a definite diagnosis of recurrent pericarditis (first recurrence), age 18 years or older, and provision of informed consent. The relevant institutional review boards and ethics committees approved our research protocol, and all participants gave written informed consent"

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded if they were having their first episode of acute pericarditis or their second or subsequent recurrence or had pericarditis with tuberculous, purulent, or neoplastic causes; known severe liver disease; current aminotransferase levels greater than 1.5 times the upper limit of normal, current serum creatinine level greater than 221 mol/L(2.5mg/dL); known myopathy; serum creatine kinase level above the upper limit of normal; known blood dyscrasias; gastrointestinal disease; or known hypersensitivity to colchicine. Also excluded were pregnant or lactating women (because of the contraindication to colchicine) and women in their childbearing years who were not using contraception. Finally, we excluded persons who were receiving or had previously received colchicine for any indication."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: colchicine 1 ‐ 2 mg on the first day, followed by maintenance dose of 0.5 ‐ 1.0 mg/d

  • < 70 kg or intolerant to higher dose: 0.5 mg/12h, then maintenance dose 0.5 mg/d; ≥ 70 kg: 2 mg/d, then maintenance dose 1 mg/d

  • Plus conventional treatment of 800 to 1000 mg aspirin (or ibuprofen, 600 mg) every 8 hours for 7 ‐ 10 days, with gradual tapering over 3 ‐ 4 weeks

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo plus conventional treatment of 800 to 1000 mg Aspirin (or ibuprofen, 600 mg) per os every 8 hours for 7‐10 days, with gradual tapering over 3‐4 weeks

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Pericarditis recurrence rate at 18 months

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Gastrointestinal adverse event, adverse event (any), serious adverse events

Notes

"Primary Funding Source: Maria Vittoria Hospital, Torino, Italy."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"central computer– based automated sequence Randomization was based on permuted blocks, with a block size of 4. The random allocation sequence was implemented by using sequentially numbered containers."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"central computer–based automated sequence"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"participants and trial investigators were blinded to randomized treatment"; double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"Data were collected by using case report and clinical events adjudication forms and were managed by investigators who were blinded to treatment assignments. A blinded clinical end point committee adjudicated all events."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

ITT, 7% in the control and 8% in the colchicine group discontinued intervention

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

"Study protocol: Available from Dr. Imazio (e‐mail, [email protected]). Statistical code and data set: available from Dr. Imazio (e‐mail, [email protected]) for personal use, with approval from the Steering Committee"

CORP‐2

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 20 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 240. Colchicine 120, control 120

Condition: Recurrent pericarditis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Italy

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 48.6 (13.6), placebo 48.9 (15.5)

Sex (women): Colchicine 45%, control 55%

Inclusion criteria: "Consecutive patients aged 18 years or older with two or more recurrences of pericarditis (idiopathic, viral, post‐cardiac injury, or caused by connective tissue disease) were eligible for enrolment."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients with any of the following were ineligible: tuberculous, neoplastic, or purulent pericarditis; severe liver disease or current aminotransferase concentrations more than 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal; serum creatinine concentration more than 221.00 μmol/L; skeletal myopathy or serum creatine kinase concentration more than the upper limit of the normal; blood dyscrasia; inflammatory bowel disease; hypersensitivity to colchicine or other contraindication to colchicine; current treatment with colchicine; and life expectancy of 18 months or less. Pregnant or lactating women or women of childbearing potential not using contraception were also ineligible, as were patients with evidence of myopericarditis as indicated by any increase of serum troponin concentration."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 0.5 or 1.0 mg daily

  • < 70 kg or intolerant to higher dose: 0.5 mg/d; ≥ 70 kg: 2 x 0.5 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • "Colchicine and placebo tablets were identical"

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Recurrent pericarditis

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Gastrointestinal adverse events, adverse events (any), serious adverse events

Notes

"supported by the former Azienda Sanitaria 3 of Torino (now ASLTO2) within the Italian National Health service. Acarpia (Madeira, Portugal) provided the study drug and placebo as an unrestricted grant."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"Participants were randomly assigned to receive colchicine or placebo (1:1) with a central computer‐based automated sequence."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"The random allocation sequence was implemented with sequentially numbered study drug containers."

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, "All patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"All patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

ITT, 6% in the control and 7% in the colchicine group discontinued intervention

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Low risk

Protocol available.

Cortez‐Pinto 2002

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 41 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 62. Colchicine 31, control 31

Condition: Alcoholic cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 53.2 (8.5), control 54.4 (9.1)

Sex (women): Colchicine 7%, control 15%

Inclusion criteria: "Ambulatory subjects aged 18‐65 years, with biopsy proven liver cirrhosis and a well‐documented history of previous daily alcohol intake exceeding 40 g of ethanol in women and 60 g in men for more than 5 years, in whom other causes of liver disease were excluded, were eligible for inclusion."

Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria included the presence of other liver diseases, namely haemochromatosis, Wilson's disease, α₁‐antitrypsin deficiency, autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, or viral hepatitis, as evaluated by the latter tests. Child‐Pugh class C, serum bilirubin >10 mg/dl, gastrointestinal bleeding in the previous 15 days, refractory ascites, or serious illness, e.g. renal failure (creatinine >2.5 mg/dl), cardiac failure or neoplasia were also exclusion criteria."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d, 5 d/week

  • Duration: median 40.6 months (range 1.4 ‐ 126.3)

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: median 42.4 months (range 5.7 ‐ 118.2)

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Clinical endpoints were death from any cause, episodes of gastrointestinal bleeding, ascites, encephalopathy or jaundice."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, gastrointestinal adverse events, adverse events (any)

Notes

Maximum follow‐up 10 years. "supported in part by a grant from the Center of Nutrition and Metabolism (RUN 437)."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"computer‐generated randomization list (blocks of four)"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"either 1 mg colchicine or a placebo identical in appearance, prepared at the hospital pharmacy. The study `drugs' were coded and distributed to the patient, by the hospital pharmacy, according to a computer‐generated randomization list (blocks of four)."

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, "At no time were the treatment codes disclosed for any patient, attending physicians or investigators."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Unclear, although "investigators" are blinded

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

"Two (6%) patients in the colchicine group and five (16%) in the placebo, who did not return for the first follow‐up visit, were not included in the analysis of data." ITT mentioned but not all randomised participants were analysed; "Patient dropouts were as follows: nine patients (16%) before 3 years, 14 patients (25%) before 5 years, and 33 patients (60%) before 10 years."

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Deftereos 2013

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 6 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 222. Colchicine 112, control 110

Condition: PCI

Cardiovascular risk profile: Secondary prevention

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 63.7 (6.9), control 63.5 (7.2)

Sex (women): Colchicine 37%, control 32%

Inclusion Criteria:

"Eligible patients were diabetic, 40 to 80 years of age, undergoing PCI in a coronary artery with a diameter of at least 2.5 mm with a BMS. Acceptable reasons for not implanting a drug‐eluting stent were: contraindication to long‐term dual antiplatelet treatment, need for triple antithrombotic therapy, planned or high probability of necessary surgery in the following 12 months, or the patient’s expressed wish in the context of the PCI informed consent procedure. Only 1 lesion per patient was included in the study. (If PCI was performed in >1 coronary site in a patient, the site with the greater artery diameter was included.) Diabetes mellitus had to be previously diagnosed by a specialist, with the patient treated with either oral medication or insulin."

Exclusion Criteria:

"Exclusion criteria were left main artery disease (>30% in angiography); PCI performed as primary treatment for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction, hepatic impairment (Child‐Pugh class B or C); target vessel segment presenting particular technical challenges for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) (e.g., marked tortuosity, vessel with steep take‐off angle); severe or end‐stage renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤20 ml/min/1.73 m² or requiring dialysis); history of intolerance to colchicine, myopathy, and statin hepatotoxicity or myotoxicity; women with child‐bearing potential; and inability or unwillingness to adhere to standard treatment or to provide consent."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.5 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary Outcome of the Study:

  • "The main outcome measures were angio‐ISR and IVUS‐ISR."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Gastrointestinal adverse events, cardiovascular intervention, all‐cause mortality, stroke fatal; from author request: heart failure fatal and non‐fatal, stroke non‐fatal, cardiovascular mortality

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Method of randomisation not specified in publication; author reply: “This is not reported in the paper, but randomization was computer‐based, with the random number sequence being produced by a short script in R language.”

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Not reported in the publication; author reply: “Outcome assessment was completely blinded. It is stated in the published paper that 'Captured IVUS data, identified only by a serial number, were analyzed offline.' That means that assessors of IVUS‐defined restenosis were not in knowledge of the images‐patient correspondence (even if they had been they would not know the treatment allocation of each patient). The same was true for the QCA measurements (for angiographic restenosis).”

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Modified ITT: "All patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment were included in the analysis"; "Of 222 eligible patients who consented to take part in the study, 26 (12%) were not available for follow‐up catheterization. As a result, 196 (100 in the colchicine and 96 in the placebo group) completed the study procedures and were available for analysis"; according to author reply, all randomised participants were analysed for outcomes pertinent to this review.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Deftereos 2014a

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 6 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 279. Colchicine 140, control 139

Condition: Chronic heart failure

Cardiovascular risk profile: Secondary prevention

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 66.9 (5.8), control 66.4 (5.7)

Sex (women): Colchicine 33%, control 33%

Inclusion criteria: "Patients with stable symptomatic heart failure and systolic left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤40%) were included."

Exclusion criteria: "Recently hospitalized patients (hospital stay for heart failure in the previous 3 months) were excluded. Other exclusion criteria were New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV, recent (in the previous 6 months) implantation of a cardiac resynchronization treatment device, active inflammatory/infectious disease or malignancy, known autoimmune diseases, corticosteroid or other immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory therapy, moderate or severe hepatic impairment (Child‐Pugh class B or C), severe renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min/1.73 m²), current participation in another research protocol, and inability or unwillingness to adhere to standard treatment or to provide consent."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 0.5 mg/d if body weight < 60 kg. 2 x 0.5 mg/d if body weight ≥ 60 kg

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo daily

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least one‐grade improvement in New York Heart Association class for heart failure."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, gastrointestinal adverse events

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers); from author: "Randomization was computer‐based. Random numbers were produced by a short script written in R language.”

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

All personnel blinded

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

ITT and PP; 3 participants excluded from analysis (1%)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Douglas 1998

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Open‐label

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 30 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 26. Colchicine 14, control 12

Condition: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Not reported

Country: USA

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 65.9 (12.3), control 69.9 (4.0)

Sex (women): Colchicine 17%, control 29%

Inclusion criteria: "Conforms to clinical plus either high‐resolution computed tomography (HRCT) or histopathologic criteria for the diagnosis of idiopathic UIP; baseline tests performed, including pulmonary function, chest radiograph, serum creatinine, liver function tests, and complete blood count; willing to return for follow‐up examination at 3 month intervals for 1 year; age 18 years or older; written informed consent given."

Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria were as follows: history of allergy, intolerance, or unwillingness to take either study drug; pregnancy, lactation, or women capable of becoming pregnant who were without adequate birth control; history of chronic asthma and/or treated for asthma within the previous year; diabetes treated (including dietary therapy) within the previous year; active tuberculosis treated within the previous year; use of either study drug within the previous 2 months."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 0.6 ‐ 1.2 mg/day as tolerated

  • Duration: 12 months

Control:

  • "The minimum dose of prednisone used was 60 mg/d for 1 mo, tapered to 40 mg/d over the second month, tapered to 40 mg every other day during the third month, with subsequent doses adjusted as clinically indicated"

  • Duration: 12 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Death, significant deterioration of pulmonary function, intolerance or adverse event due to the study drug requiring cessation of therapy, addition of a second drug for treatment of UIP, and study dropout for any other reason."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

"Funding was provided by Mayo Institute funds."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Method of randomisation not specified, but was done by biostatistician: "Randomization was accomplished by the Section of Biostatistics at Mayo Rochester." and "Within each stratum defined by the three stratification factors described previously, the randomization was done in blocks of four, ensuring that after every fourth subject was entered in a given stratum the number of subjects in the stratum assigned to prednisone was the same as the number of subjects in the strata assigned to colchicine."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open study

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not clear; missing data reported for baseline and various outcomes (e.g. baseline symptoms 7.1% vs 16.7% missing data)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Ikeda 1996

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Not reported

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 22. Colchicine 10, control 12

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age mean (SE) in years: Colchicine 57 (3), control 64 (3)

Sex (women): Colchicine 90%, control 83%

Inclusion criteria: "The diagnosis of PBC was made based on the following observations: 1) elevation of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) over the upper limit of normal, 2) presence of antimitochondrial antibody in the serum, 3) compatible histological appearance of liver biopsy specimens, and 4) radiological or ultrasonographic evidence that the bile ducts were patent. Anti‐mitochondrial antibody titers were measured by the immunofluorescence technique. Histological staging of liver biopsy specimens was carried out as previously described."

Exclusion criteria: "None of them had a history of blood transfusion, ethanol addiction, or drug abuse, and none had anti‐HCV antibodies (second‐generation RIA assay), HBs antigen, or anti‐HBc antibody in the serum" and "No patients had taken any medicines known to be hepatotoxic nor had been treated with corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, colchicine, penicillamine, or UDCA in the previous 6 months."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Plus ursodeoxycholic acid 600 mg/d

  • Duration: 2 years

Control:

  • Ursodeoxycholic acid 600 mg/d

  • Duration: 2 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "The major pre‐defined parameters for the evaluation of UDCA treatment were serum levels of total bilirubin, ALP, y‐glutamyltranspeptidase (y‐GTP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and IgM. To evaluate the effectiveness of UDCA treatment in each patient, indices were calculated as weighted means of changes in these values (expressed as the ratio to baseline values) according to Battezzati et al. with slight modifications as follows"

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Gastrointestinal adverse events, adverse events (any)

Notes

Previous treatment with 600 mg/d ursodeoxycholic acid during 30 months before randomisation in 2 different groups, and continued for 2 years after randomisation. "supported by a grant from the Intractable Liver Diseases Research Committee, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Japan."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding, no placebo

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear; missing data unclear

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Kaplan 1986

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 60. Colchicine 30, control 30

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age: 6 participants ≤ 50 years in colchicine group and 6 participants ≤ 50 years in control group (no further information provided in paper)

Sex (women): Colchicine 93%, control 97%

Inclusion criteria: "The criteria for entry into the trial included a clinical history and biochemical profile consistent with primary biliary cirrhosis, a positive test for antimitochondrial antibody, liver‐biopsy results consistent with or diagnostic of primary biliary cirrhosis, and radiologic or ultrasonographic evidence that the bile ducts were patent."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Duration: 2 years

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 2 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Each patient remained in the double‐blind phase of the study for 24 months unless clear evidence of progression of the disease was found, at which time treatment was considered to have failed in that patient. Treatment failure was defined as (1) doubling of both serum alkaline phospatase and bilirubin levels on at least two consecutive measurements at two‐month intervals, (2) tripling of either level ‐also at two consecutive two‐months intervals appearance, or (3) the appearance of a serious complications such as hepatic encephalopathy, intractable ascites, hemorrhage from esophageal varices."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Fatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, all‐cause mortality

Notes

Control group received colchicine after 2 years. "Supported by a Research Grant (AM‐28490), a Training Grant (AM‐07024). and a General Research Center Grant (M01‐RR00054) from the National institutes of Health."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not sufficiently specified ("randomization scheme in which the numbers […] tended to be kept equal")

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind until 24 months; placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

3 of 60 participants (5%) dropped out and were excluded from the analysis; the rest were included in analyses. 2 of them had early disease and did no tolerate medication, 1 had Stage 4 disease.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Kaplan 1999

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 10 years

Participants

Number randomised: 87. Colchicine 43, control 42; (2 never received any drug, allocation not reported)

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 51 (1.4), control 51 (1.5)

Sex (women): 94%

Inclusion criteria: "15 Patients were included provided they had (1) a medical history and blood test results consistent with chronic cholestatic liver disease; (2) a serum alkaline phosphatase that was at least twice that of the upper limit of normal; (3) a serum bilirubin that was not greater than 10 mg/dL; (4) a liver biopsy performed within 12 months of entry that was consistent with primary biliary cirrhosis, and (5) imaging tests that demonstrated that bile ducts were patent."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded if they had end‐stage liver disease, which was defined as: (1) a serum bilirubin level greater than 10 mg/dL or a serum albumin level less than 3.0 g/dL on two examinations two months apart; (2) hepatic encephalopathy; (3) hemorrhage from esophageal varices and/or portal gastropathy; (4) refractory ascites; or (5) signs of hypersplenism (i.e. a hematocrit less than 30, white blood cell count less than 2,500, and platelet count less than 100,000). Other reasons for exclusion were history of alcohol abuse, administration of drugs associated with chronic liver disease, contemplation of pregnancy, or any serious medical illness that might in itself cause liver dysfunction or shorten life expectancy."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Duration: 2 ‐ 10 years

Control:

  • Methotrexate 15 mg/week

  • Duration: 2 ‐ 10 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Initially, the study was designed such that each patient would remain in the double‐blind phase of the study for 6 years or until clear evidence of progression of disease or drug toxicity was detected and the patient was judged a treatment failure. Evidence of progression included: (1) an increase in serum bilirubin of 3 mg/dL or more to a level exceeding 4 mg/dL that was maintained for at least 3 months; (2) a decrease in serum albumin of 0.8 g/dL or more to a level below 3 g/dL that was maintained for at least 3 months; and 3) appearance of a serious complication, such as hepatic encephalopathy, intractable ascites, or hemorrhage from esophageal varices. Patients who developed toxicity attributable to a drug were also classified as treatment failures. Drug toxicity attributable to methotrexate included interstitial pneumonitis and persistent cytopenias that were not due to hypersplenism (determined after patients had undergone bone marrow biopsy). Drug toxicity attributable to colchicine included intractable diarrhea and cytopenias not due to hypersplenism. Patients classified as treatment failures were censored and then referred for liver transplantation if clinically indicated or followed outside of the study."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Ursodeoxycholic acid was administered to all participants after 2 years. "Supported in part by National Institutes of Health Center for Research Resources, General Clinical Research Center, grant RR 00054; by GRASP (Gastroenterologic Research in Absorptive and Secretory Processes) Digestive Disease Center grant NIH‐NIDDK P30 DK34928; and by a grant from Lederle Laboratories (Pearl River, New York)."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"randomly assigned, using a computer generated list in blocks of four"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Active drug and placebo were kept in the hospital pharmacy and dispensed by a research pharmacist who was the only caregiver with access to the randomisation code.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"Patients and investigators were blinded"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT; high rate of withdrawals: 14% in both study groups at 2‐year follow‐up, 51% in colchicine group and 67% in control at 10‐year follow‐up

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Kershenobich 1976

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 24 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 28. Colchicine 14, control 14

Condition: Liver fibrosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age: Not reported

Sex (women): Not reported

Inclusion criteria: "Each patient had bilirubin below 1 mg%, prothrombin below 16/12 and pre‐trial histologic evidence of cirrhosis."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d, 5 d/week

  • Duration: 24 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 24 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Liver biopsy, histological changes

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

This study was reported as an abstract only.
Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No missing data reported, 2 participants in group B (placebo) died

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Abstract only

Kershenobich 1988

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 14 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 100.Colchicine 54, control 46

Condition: Liver fibrosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Mexico

Age mean (SE) in years: Colchicine 49.7 (1.5), control 50.8 (1.7)

Sex (women): Colchicine 55%, control 46%

Inclusion criteria: "They had to have a definitive diagnosis of liver cirrhosis, as established by history, physical examination, and biochemical tests, histologic studies of the liver, or both. Second, they had to be at least 18 years of age."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded if they had an episode of gastrointestinal bleeding or encephalopathy within two weeks before entry into the trial, if they had a total serum bilirubin level above 171 µmol per liter (10 mg per deciliter) or a serum albumin level below 220 μmol per liter (1.5 g per deciliter), if they had a severe concomitant disease, or if they were unable to attend the clinic regularly for geographic or other reasons."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d, 5 d/week

  • Duration: up to 14 years, mean 4.7 years

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: up to 14 years, mean 4.7 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Patients' survival and histologic manifestations of cirrhosis"

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Fatal myocardial infarction, all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, gastrointestinal adverse events, adverse events (any)

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not sufficiently specified ("Randomization was carried out by one of us […]")

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"At no time […] disclose the treatment code for any patients to the attending physicians"; person who conducted randomisation was in another institution

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT; all randomised participants analysed, 19 participants lost to follow‐up (number of participants balanced between groups, but considerably unbalanced median follow‐up: colchicine 42 months vs control 12 months)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Kyle 1985

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Not reported

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 5 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 101. Colchicine 52, control 49

Condition: Primary systemic amyloidosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age median (SD) in years: Colchicine 62 (not reported), control 64 (not reported)

Sex (women): Colchicine 43%, control 40%

Inclusion criteria: "All patients had clinical or laboratory evidence of systemic amyloidosis."

Exclusion criteria: "Excluded from the study were patients with secondary, familial, or localized amyloidosis; patients with overt symptomatic multiple myeloma or diarrhea; patients who had received alkylating agents or colchicine; and patients with brittle diabetes, severe hypertension, or an active peptic ulcer that would prevent the use of prednisone as indicated in the protocol."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg at beginning, then increased by 0.6 mg/d each week until abdominal cramps or diarrhoea developed. The use of colchicine was then discontinued and was resumed in the highest dose that did not produce side effects. Median dose was 1.5 mg.

  • Duration: median 12 months (range 1 ‐ 56 months)

Control:

  • "Dose: melphalan 0.15 mg/kg daily and prednisone 0.8 mg/kg daily for a 7‐day period. Melphalan/prednisone therapy was repeated every 6 weeks. The dose of melphalan was increased by 2 mg daily for each 6‐week course until mid‐cycle leukopenia or thrombocytopenia occurred. If severe leukopenia or thrombocytopenia occurred, the dose of melphalan was reduced accordingly."

  • Duration: median 12 months (range 1 ‐ 30 months)

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Time of death, or progression of disease

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Heart failure, all‐cause mortality

Notes

"Forty‐nine patients initially received melphalan/prednisone and eight subsequently had colchicine added to their regimen. Fifty‐two patients lnitially received colchicine and 35 subsequently required melphalan/prednisone because of progressive disease." "supported in part by Research Grant CA‐16835 from the National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, Bethesda, Maryland, and by the Toor Myeloma Research Fund, West Palm Beach, Florida."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Not specified, but authors report that colchicine dosage was weekly increased until side effects occurred, thus no blinding

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear; it seems all randomised participants were analysed

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Kyle 1997

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Unclear

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 9 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 148. Colchicine, melphalan and prednisone 71 (MPC), melphalan and prednisone 77 (MP)

Condition: Primary amyloidosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age median (SD) in years: Colchicine 65 (not reported), control 63 (not reported)

Sex (women): Not reported

Inclusion criteria: "Amyloidosis was confirmed by biopsy in every patient."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients with secondary, familial, senile, or localized amyloidosis were not admitted to the study. Patients with overt symptomatic multiple myeloma or diarrhea were ineligible, as were patients who had previously received alkylating drugs or colchicine."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Plus melphalan (0.15 mg per kilogram) and prednisone (0.8 mg per kilogram) daily for 7 d once every 6 weeks

  • Duration: Not reported

Control:

  • Melphalan (0.15 mg per kilogram) and prednisone (0.8 mg per kilogram) daily for 7 d once every 6 weeks

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Survival

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

One‐third treatment group (colchicine without melphalan or prednisone, 72 participants) was not considered for analysis. "Supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (CA62242) and the Quade Amyloidosis Research Fund."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear; missing data unclear (14 participants "were removed from the study" = 6.4%)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Lin 1996

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Open‐label

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 4 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 66. Colchicine 38, control 27. Exclusion of 1 participant after randomisation, assignment unclear

Condition: Chronic hepatitis B cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Taiwan

Age mean (SD) in years: Cochicine 40 (9), control 40 (13)

Sex (women): Colchicine 13%, control 11%

Inclusion criteria: "Patients with hepatic decompensation, bridging necrosis or an alpha‐fetoprotein level greater than 100 ng/ml during an exacerbation of hepatitis have a high risk of developing cirrhosis"

Exclusion criteria: "Patients under age 25, pregnant, with renal insufficiency (serum creatinine > 2.5mg/ml (normal < 1.0 mg/ml)), a history of idiosyncrasy or who refused the trial after careful explanation were excluded. (...)Those with clinical suspicions of cirrhosis, including spider angioma, palmar erythaema, an albumin <1.5 g m % (normal > 3.5 g m %), and endoscopy documented esophageal varices were also excluded."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1.0 mg/d, 5 d/week

  • Duration: 4 years

Control:

  • No treatment (no steroids, no antiviral agents)

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Developing cirrhosis, episodes of acute exacerbation

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

"supported by grants from the National Science Council of the Republic of China: NSC‐79‐0419‐B18209, NSC‐80‐0412‐B‐182A‐32 and NSC‐82‐0412‐B‐182‐029."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"random table sequence"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open‐label

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

12% participants were lost, unclear group allocation

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Lukina 1995

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial

Blinding: Not reported

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: Colchicine up to 2 years, control up to 7 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 54. Colchicine 27, control 27

Condition: Renal amyloidosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Not reported

Country: Not reported

Age: Not reported

Sex: Not reported

Inclusion criteria: People with renal amyloidosis secondary to rheumatic diseases

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 ‐ 2 mg/d

  • Duration: up to 2 years

Control:

  • Dimethyl sulfoxide, 1 ‐ 2 g/d

  • Duration: up to 7 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "changes in glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine level and fluid retention, in physician and patient global assessment and tolerability."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Adverse events (any)

Notes

This study was reported as an abstract only.
Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers)

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Follow‐up in the control group was 5 years longer

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

Abstract only

Morgan 2005

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (13 centres)

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 6 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 549. Colchicine 274, control 275

Condition: Alcoholic cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 55.2 (8.0), control 55.9 (7.6)

Sex (women): Colchicine 2.5%, control 1.4%

Inclusion criteria: "Outpatients were eligible for the study if they had a clinical diagnosis of alcoholic cirrhosis (based on a long history of alcohol use and the exclusion of other causes of liver disease and a modified Pugh 27 score of 7 or greater. Liver biopsy demonstrating cirrhosis was required unless contraindications to biopsy were present (eg. ascites, coagulopathy)."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded for the following reasons: gastrointestinal bleeding within the prior 28 days requiring transfusion; explicit drug use in the prior 12 months, human immunodeficiency virus infection; cancer in the prior 10 years; serum creatinine greater than 1.5 mg/dL; total white blood cell (WBC) count less than 3500/mL; age 70 years or greater; serious chronic disease interfering with adherence to the protocol follow‐up schedule; no home telephone; and refusal."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Duration: all participants at least 24 months, some up to 72 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: all participants at least 24 months, some up to 72 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • All‐cause mortality

Outcomes (time points) considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, non‐scheduled hospitalisation

Notes

"Supported by the Cooperative Studies Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation scheme based on permuted bocks of random length separately for each study centre

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"Patient enrollment and random assignment to treatment was by telephone call to the data‐coordinating center" and matched placebo

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Neither participants nor study personnel were aware of treatment group assignment

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

"physicians assessing the outcomes were aware of the treatment group assignment until all data analysis was complete."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

ITT, no losses to follow‐up for survival analysis

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Muntoni 2010

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 4 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 74. Colchicine 37, control 37

Condition: Chronic liver disease

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Not reported

Age mean (SD) in years: 53 (13)

Sex (women): 38%

Inclusion criteria: Not reported. Diverse chronic liver diseases

Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria were: age < 20 years or a known hypersensitivity to colchicine. Patients were recruited by referral from general practitioner or by self choice and gave informed consent to be assigned to intervention (colchicine) or control by using random allocation."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Duration: 4.4 years

Control:

  • Standard treatment (diuretics, beta‐blockers, ursodeoxycholic acid, withdrawal of alcohol)

  • Duration: 4.4 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "To test whether colchicine would be an effective antifibrotic agent for treatment of chronic liver diseases in patients who could not be treated with α‐interferon."

Outcomes (time‐points) considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified ("using random allocation. Randomization was performed by giving 74 consecutive numbers to all patients coming to our clinic")

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Reported as double‐blind in the abstract, not placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Analysis unclear; odd mentioning of ITT ("Inclusion criteria were on an intention‐to‐treat basis."); 12 (colchicine 9 and control 3; 16%) participants withdrew due to personal reasons, another 10 (colchicine 3 and control 7; 14%) died

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement.

Nidorf 2013

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Open trial, observer‐blinded endpoint

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 3 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 532. Colchicine 282, control 250

Condition: Stable coronary disease

Cardiovascular risk profile: Secondary prevention

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Australia

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 66 (9.6), control 67 (9.2)

Sex (women): Colchicine 11%, control 11%

Inclusion criteria: "Patients were eligible for inclusion if they met each of the following criteria: 1) angiographically proven coronary disease; 2) age 35 to 85 years; 3) clinically stable for at least 6 months; 4) no major competing comorbidities or contraindication to colchicine therapy; 5) considered to be compliant with therapy and attending routine cardiology follow‐up appointments; and 6) willing to provide consent and be randomized into the study. Patients with a history of bypass surgery were only eligible if they had undergone bypass surgery more than 10 years before, had angiographic evidence of graft failure, or had undergone stenting since their bypass surgery."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 0.5 mg/d

  • Duration: 3 years

Control:

  • No placebo

  • Duration: 3 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Composite incidence of acute coronary syndrome, out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, or noncardioembolic ischaemic stroke

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Fatal and non‐fatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, fatal and non‐fatal stroke, all‐cause mortality

Notes

93% of the participants continued with aspirin and/or clopidogrel and 95% continued with statins;

"Patients (N=32) who were intolerant of therapy remained in the study, were followed in the usual manner, and were included in the primary ITT analysis"; Trial "conducted under the auspices of the Heart Research Institute of Western Australia." "There was no external funding source."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation sequence was computer‐generated

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Concealed from the investigators

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Open trial

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Observer‐blinded outcome trial

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Modified ITT: "All patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment were included in the analysis"; ≤ 10% missing data per group that were excluded from analysis

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Nikolaidis 2006

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Not reported

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 12 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 38. Colchicine 21, control 17

Condition: Liver cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Greece

Age median (SD) in years: Colchicine 49 (not reported), control 53 (not reported)

Sex (women): Colchicine 43%, control 35%

Inclusion criteria: Chronic liver disease

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded from the study if they had: age <20 and >70 years, evidence of pregnancy, malignancies or renal, cardiopulmonary, hematological, neurological and collagen diseases, diabetes mellitus, hyper/hypothyroidism or Child C liver function."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1.0 mg/d, 5d/week

  • Duration: at least 12 months

Control:

  • No antifibrotic treatment

  • Duration: at least 12 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Biochemical parameters; PIIINP, IgA, IgG, IgM, CD4, CD 8, CD 4

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Adverse events (any), gastrointestinal adverse events

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of concealment not specified

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

"Liver tissue samples were evaluated by two pathologists (K.P., M.L.) who were blinded to the treatment groups and to response to treatment." However, we did not look into liver outcomes, so the blinding remains unclear

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear, no dropouts reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

O'Keefe 1992

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 6 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 197. Colchicine 130, control 67

Condition: Coronary angioplasty

Cardiovascular risk profile: Secondary prevention

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 59 (not reported), control 62 (not reported)

Sex (women): Colchicine 15%, control 13%

Inclusion criteria: "Elegibility criteria for entry into the trial were 1) successful elective coronary angioplasty; 2) single or multivessel angioplasty; 3) bypass graft angioplasty; 4) angioplasty of previously undiluted (new) and restenosed lesions; 5) angioplasty performed for silent ischemia and stable or unstable angina pectoris"

Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria were 1) direct angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction; 2) unsuccessful coronary angioplasty; 3) premenopausal women; 4) baseline leukopenia; 5) active peptic ulcer disease; 6) active diarrhea; 7) creatinine ≥2.5 mg/dI at baseline; 8) known colchicine intolerance. Successful angioplasty was defined as the reduction of the dilated lesion to ≤50% lumen diameter stenosis without documented acute reocclusion during the hospital stay."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.6 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Restenosis after coronary angioplasty

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No ITT analysis reported, incomplete outcome measures (angiographic follow‐up rate 74%) mainly due to refusal of catheterisation, reported dropout rate due to adverse events, Colchicine 6.9% vs control 1.5%

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Olsson 1995

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (7 centres)

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 3 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 84. Colchicine 44, control 40

Condition: Primary sclerosing cholangitis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Sweden

Age mean (95% CI) in years: Colchicine 39.5 (36.2 to 42.7), control 43.7 (40.1 to 47.3)

Sex (women): Colchicine 39%, control 28%

Inclusion criteria: Diagnosis of PSC based on typical cholangiographic appearance

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Duration: 3 years

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 3 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • All‐cause mortality or liver transplantation

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

"Supported by G. D. Searle Ltd."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not sufficiently specified ("randomization procedure was performed for each center using the sealed envelope technique")

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not sufficiently specified ("sealed envelope technique")

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT; dropout colchicine 18% vs control 5%, overall 12%

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Parise 1995

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 1 year

Participants

Number randomised: Total 41. Colchicine 21, control 20

Condition: Alcoholic cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Brazil

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 49.2 (9.9), control 47.8 (9.8)

Sex (women): Colchicine 10%, control 14%

Inclusion criteria: Chronic liver disease (confirmed by biopsy and/or ultrasound, endoscopy and clinical findings)
due to alcohol abuse (alcoholic cirrhosis)

Exclusion criteria: Hepatitis B confirmed by laboratory exams; any previous history of post‐transfusion hepatitis; alcoholic hepatitis; heart failure; renal failure; schistosomiasis (bilharzia); gastric bleeding during the last 30 days before the study start; advanced hepatic encephalopathy; refractory ascites; hepatorenal syndrome; type‐II diabetes; use of corticosteroids or sexual hormones

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Duration: 1 year

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 1 year

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Improvement in serum albumin, pre‐albumin, prothrombin and transferrin levels

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (fatal), stroke (fatal), heart failure (fatal)

Notes

Study published in Portuguese. The study was funded by Smith‐Kline.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information is given. The authors state that the a stratified randomisation was “applied”, but no detail is provided on how the sequence was generated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

No information given

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Reported as "double‐blind"

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

No information given

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

There were 3 participants lost during the 12‐month follow‐up (table 2, “perdas deseguimento”/ translation: “loss of follow‐up“): 1 from the colchicine group and 2 from the placebo group. Those participants were included in the final assessment regarding alcohol relapse, all‐cause mortality and hepatic decompensation. Those losses are unlikely to have significant effects on the results.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Paulus 1974

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (2 centres)

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 6 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 52. Colchicine 29, control 23

Condition: Gout

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: USA

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 53 (not reported), control 52 (not reported)

Sex (women): 0%

Inclusion criteria: "Diagnosis of gout in presence of hyperuricaemia. Patients were selected from the Gout Clinics of the Veterans Administration Hospitals in West Los Angeles and Kansas City, and the UCLA and University of Kansas Medical Center Hospitals."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded if they were known to be uncooperative during treatment or if significant renal disease was present as reflected in a serum creatinine greater than 1.2 mg/100ml."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 3 x 0.5 mg/d

  • Plus probenecid 1500 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo plus probenecid 1500 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Episodes of acute recurrent gout

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Adverse events (any), gastrointestinal adverse events

Notes

Mean therapy duration < 6 months: colchicine 5.5 months and control 5.2 months. "Supported by the Veterans Administration, Southern California Arthritis Foundation, Merck Sharpe and Dohme and USPHS Grant GM 15759."; "Merck Sharpe and Dohme Research Laboratories, West Point, Pennsylvania, who kindly provided the colchicine used in this study."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers)

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Dropout: colchicine 31% and control 22%; per protocol analysis

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Poupon 1996

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre (10 centres)

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 74. Colchicine 37, control 37

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: France

Age mean (SE) in years: Colchicine 55 (2), control 52 (2)

Sex (women): Colchicine 89%, control 81%

Inclusion criteria: "Criteria for entry to the trial were persistent abnormalities in liver function tests, in particular serum alkaline phosphatase activity of >1.5N (N is the upper limit of normal values), in patients with PBC who have been previously treated with UDCA (13‐15 mg/kg⁻¹/d⁻¹) for at least 8 months. All patients had biopsy‐proven PBC. They were admitted to the trial regardless of the duration of symptoms or the histological stage."

Exclusion criteria: "drug therapy (except UDCA) for PBC during the previous 6 months (colchicine, azathioprine, chlorambucil, corticosteroids, D‐penicillamine, and cyclosporine); serum bilirubin concentration of >100 µmol/L; a serum albumin concentration of >25 g/L; past or active bleeding from esophageal varices; ascites; other identified causes of liver or biliary diseases; excessive alcohol consumption (>50 g/d); severe intercurrent disease; and aged older than 75 years."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d, 5 d/week

  • Plus 13 ‐ 15 mg/kilo/d of ursodeoxycholic acid in 2 doses

  • Duration: 2 years

Control:

  • Dose: Placebo, 5 d/week plus 13 ‐ 15 mg/kilo/d of ursodeoxycholic acid in 2 doses

  • Duration: 2 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Efficacy of UDCA and colchicine in participants with non‐advanced primary biliary cirrhosis

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

"Supported in part by Laboratoires Houde´ (France) and Jouveinal (Canada)."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported, for liver biopsy "assessed by two pathologists unaware of the [...] treatment", no other blindings of assessment specified

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

ITT; missing data not reported

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Raedsch 1992

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 24 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 28. Colchicine 14, control 14

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Not reported

Country: Germany

Age mean (range) in years: Colchicine + control 54 years (37 ‐ 71)

Sex (women): 100%

Inclusion criteria: Women with primary biliary cirrhosis. "Initially all patients received monotherapy with UDCA in a dose of 10‐12 mg/kg per day for 12 months."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Plus ursodeoxycholic acid 10 ‐ 12 mg/kg/d

  • Duration: 24 months

Control:

  • Placebo and ursodeoxycholic acid 10 ‐ 12 mg/kg/d

  • Duration: 24 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Haematology, aminotransferases, alkaline phosphatase, bilirubin, IgM,antimitochondrial antibodies, cholesterol, procollagen‐type III‐peptide(P‐III‐P) and clinical symptoms were monitored every 3 months."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Adverse events (any), serious adverse events, gastrointestinal adverse events

Notes

Initially all participants received monotherapy with UDCA in a dose of 10 ‐ 12 mg/kg/d for 12 months. After this period the treatment was continued in a randomised fashion with UDCA plus placebo or UCDA plus colchicine. Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers)

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Reported as double‐blinded; placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not specifically reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear; 2 participants were excluded (7%)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Reinhardt 1986

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 3 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 74. Colchicine 37, control 37

Condition: Liver fibrosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Germany

Age: Not reported

Sex (women): Not reported

Inclusion criteria: Liver fibrosis or cirrhosis.

Exclusion criteria: Participants were excluded if they had episodes of gastrointestinal bleedings, hepatic encephalopathy in the last two 2 weeks, bilirubin‐levels > 2 mg %, 34 µmol/l respectively, because of noncompliance, non‐hepatic diseases which change the biochemical parameters of the metabolism of the connective tissue, and the inability to asses the histological process

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 4 x 0.25 mg/d, 5d/week

  • Duration: 3 years

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 3 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Clinical results, paraclinical data, concerning hepatological diagnostic and connective tissue metabolism and morphologic data

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind study

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

13 of 74 individuals lost to follow‐up

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Trinchet 1989

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 6 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 67. Colchicine 33, control 34

Condition: Alcoholic cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Belgium

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 52 (8), control 52 (9)

Sex (women): Colchicine 36%, control 50%

Inclusion criteria: "Alcoholic patients with histologically proven Alcoholic cirrhosis assessed by per‐cutaneous liver biopsy, with or without cirrhosis, were consecutively included in the study."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were not included in case of hepatic encephalopathy, presence of ascites, prothrombin activity below 50 per cent or platelet count below 100.10⁹/l, hepatocellular carcinoma, evident lack of compliance or refusal to participate in the trial."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Duration: 6 months

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Change in alcoholic hepatitis score

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Houdé Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Paris, France, supplied colchicine and placebo.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified (sealed envelopes, but not opaque)

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Details of concealment not sufficiently specified ("sealed envelopes")

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Analysis unclear; dropouts 48.5% vs 52.9% at 6 months

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Vuoristo 1995

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, multicentre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 90. Colchicine 29, placebo 31

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Finland

Age mean in years: Colchicine 56, placebo 57

Sex: (women): Colchicine 86%, placebo 87%

Inclusion criteria: "Criteria for entry into the trial were elevated serum alkaline phosphatase activity, liver biopsy findings diagnostic of or compatible with PBC, and a positive result for serum mitochondrial antibodies. In patients fulfilling the above criteria but negative for antimitochondrial antibodies, other potential causes of liver disease were excluded, and the patency of the bile ducts was evaluated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. All patients tested negative for hepatitis B surface antigen and for hepatitis C antibodies."

Exclusion criteria: "Patients with endstage PBC and those who used drugs that might affect the course of PBC were excluded from the study. Thus, patients whose serum bilirubin level was >150 btmol/L, serum albumin level was <25 g/L, or TT‐SPA (thrombotest) was <50% in two successive determinations were excluded, as were patients with drug‐resistant ascites and those in whom liver transplantation was indicated. None of the patients had used colchicine, UDCA, D‐penicillamine, or immunosuppressive drugs (corticosteroids, azathioprine, cyclosporin A, methotrexate) for 6 months before the trial. "

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.5 mg/d

  • Duration: 2 years

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 2 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • "Deaths; the absence or presence (intermittent or continuous) of pruritus, fatigue, or anorexia; and adverse effects of the drugs were evaluated."

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction

Notes

Third study group receiving UDCA (n = 30) not relevant for this review and thus not extracted. "Supported by grants from the Finnish Foundation for Gastroenterological Research and the Mary and Georg C. Ehrnrooth Foundation. Leiras Oy, Finland, supplied the drugs for this study and financial support."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Method of randomisation not specified, "using consecutive case numbers"

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported specifically enough (sequential numbers)

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

ITT mentioned, data analysis unclear. Dropouts: colchicine 17%, control 26%, UDCA 0%

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Wang 1994

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: median 26 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 100. Colchicine 50, control 50

Condition: Chronic hepatitis B

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Taiwan

Age mean (SD) in years: Colchicine 60 (not reported), control 59 (not reported)

Sex (women): Colchicine 6%, control 6%

Inclusion criteria: People with HBsAg‐positive cirrhosis

Exclusion criteria: "Patients were excluded if they had end‐stage liver cirrhosis (serum albumin level below 25 g/I or total bilirubin level above 171 µmol/l ), episodes of variceal bleeding, or hepatic encephalopathy within 2 weeks before recruitment into this trial, a concomitant debilitating illness, or if they were unable to attend the clinic regularly."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 1 mg/d

  • Duration: median: 26 months (range 15 ‐ 51 months)

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: median: 26 months (range 15 ‐ 51 months)

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Mortality

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

"supported by grant NSC No. 82‐0412‐B075‐027 from the National Science Council, Republic of China."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"The random numbers were computer generated and arranged in numerical order and divided in two."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

"a nurse [...] prepared coded supplies of colchicine or placebo according to the random numbers for the staff physicians and each patient at entry and every follow‐up"

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled. "Neither the patients nor the physicians knew which treatment was given."

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Analysis unclear; missing data 9%, but unclear how allocated to the groups

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Warnes 1987

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 18 months

Participants

Number randomised: Total 64. Colchicine 34, placebo 30

Condition: Primary biliary cirrhosis

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: UK

Age: Not reported

Sex (women): Not reported

Inclusion criteria: "All patients gave their informed consent and the study was approved by the hospital ethical committee. At entry, 48% of patients had 'classical PBC' with pruritus followed by jaundice, whilst the other 52% had few, if any, symptoms directly referrable to the disease. All patients in the study had a raised serum alkaline phosphatase, a positive anti‐mitochondrial antibody test, and liver histology compatible with, or diagnostic of, PBC."

Exclusion criteria: Not reported

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: 2 x 0.5 mg/d

  • Duration: 23 months (range 0.6 ‐ 49.6)

Control:

  • Placebo

  • Duration: 15 months (range 0.9 ‐ 51.5)

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • All‐cause mortality

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • All‐cause mortality

Notes

Survival data is reported for 12 and 18 months. Dropouts reported until 12 months.
Funding not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"The first patient in any pair was allocated by the staff pharmacist to the treatment or placebo group by reference to random tables."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not reported

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not reported

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT for survival data. 16% participants dropped out within 12 months (colchicine 24%, control 7%), but were available for survival analysis

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

Yurdakul 2001

Study characteristics

Methods

Design: Randomised controlled trial, single‐centre

Blinding: Double‐blind

Longest mean follow‐up period for a review‐relevant outcome: 2 years

Participants

Number randomised: Total 116. Colchicine 58. Control 58.

Condition: Behçet's syndrome

Cardiovascular risk profile: Not reported

Setting: Outpatient

Country: Turkey

Age mean (SD) in years: Women:cColchicine 26.7 (4.8), control 27.2 (5.5). Men: colchicine 27.0 (5.5), control 27.3 (5.3)

Sex (women): Colchicine 47%, control 47%

Inclusion criteria: "All patients were required to meet the inclusion criteria, which meant that they had to 1) be consecutive patients (male or female), 2) be 18–35 years of age, 3) have active disease, 4) have a disease duration of ≤2 years, and 5) live at a reasonable traveling distance from our center. Active disease was defined as the minimum presence of oral or genital ulceration or erythema nodosum occurring at least 3 times within the preceding 6 months. The disease duration was defined as the time that had elapsed since the diagnostic criteria had been fulfilled."

Exclusion criteria: "We excluded patients who 1) had received immunosuppressive agents, steroids, or colchicine within the preceding 6 months, 2) had organ involvement requiring immunosuppression, or 3) had eye disease, especially with retinal involvement, during the recruitment period. However, patients who had only a few cells in vitreous body were included if their visual acuity was >9/10 (assessed on a 10‐line scale, with a best vision of 10/10). Patients were to be withdrawn from the study in the event of a major systemic or life‐threatening manifestation such as severe eye, major vein, or central nervous system involvement."

Interventions

Colchicine:

  • Dose: colchicine 1 ‐ 2 mg/d daily, adjusted to body weight

  • Duration: 2 years

Control:

  • Dose: placebo daily, adjusted to body weight

  • Duration: 2 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome of the study:

  • Sustained absence of any lesions during treatment

Outcomes considered in this review:

  • Gastrointestinal adverse events; from author request: mortality cardiovascular, stroke fatal/non‐fatal, myocardial infarction fatal/non‐fatal, heart failure fatal/non‐fatal

Notes

"Supported by TUBITAK (Turkish Scientific and Technical Research Council; TAG 0754) and, in part, by the Research Fund of the University of Istanbul."

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

"The randomization was done separately for each sex. In each sex group, equal numbers of cards that were assigned to either the active drug or the placebo arm were mixed, drawn, and placed sequentially on a list by a secretary not involved in running the trial."

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Sealed envelopes were not stated as opaque in the publication; from author request: "The sealed envelop was really opaque but was forgotten to mention in the paper."

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Not reported in publication; from author request: "Here all patients and physicians were blinded and as well as the outcome assessment."

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

ITT; 27% did not complete month 24, but "There were no differences in the number of dropouts or reasons for withdrawal (Figure 1) between the 2 treatment arms."

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Insufficient information to permit judgement

HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma
HCV: hepatitis C virus
ITT: intention‐to‐treat
PCI: Percutaneous coronary intervention
PP: per protocol
PSC: Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
UDCA: ursodeoxycholic acid

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Afdhal 2002

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Afdhal 2004

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Ahern 1986

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Ahern 1987

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Ahmad 2011

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Ahmadieh 2014

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Akriviadis 1988

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Aktulga 1980

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Albillos 2013

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Alsahaf 2010

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Angelico 1998

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Angelico 2000

There are outcomes but reported in an uninterpretable way

Anonymous 2014

Not an RCT

Antoniou 2003

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Antoniou 2004

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Aran 2011

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Basak 1993

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Bhuiyan 2010

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Bodenheimer 1986

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Brucato 2011

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Buligescu 1990

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Cacciatore 2014

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Campollo 2001

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Cetin 2013

Study was not an RCT

Coatney 1949

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Cohen 1991

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Collins 1991

Study was not conducted in adults

Cortez Pinto 1992

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Cortez Pinto 1994

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Cortez Pinto 2000

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Cumetti 2012

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Davatchi 2009

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

De Abreu 2009

There are outcomes but reported in an uninterpretable way

De Maria 1996

There are outcomes but reported in an uninterpretable way

Deftereos 2014b

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Dinarello 1974

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Dinarello 1976

Study was not an RCT

Ediz 2012

No pertinent outcome reported at all

El‐Sherif 1999

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

El‐Zahaar 1995

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

English 1983

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Erden 2011

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Filipowicz‐Sosnowska 1990

There are outcomes but reported in an uninterpretable way

Fish 1997

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Floreani 2001

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Frayha 1979

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Gianni 2012

Study was not an RCT

Giudice 1988

Study was not an RCT

Goddard 1995

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Goldfinger 2014

Study was not an RCT

Goldstein 1974

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Goulet 2001

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Grimaitre 1999

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Gultepe 1994

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Hadzic 2005

Study was not conducted in adults

Hamuryudan 2010a

Study was not an RCT

Hamuryudan 2010b

Study was not an RCT

Hamuryudan 2011

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Hamuryudan 2014

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Hatziioannidou 1992

Study was not conducted in adults

Huet 1996a

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Huet 1996b

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Imazio 2003

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2005

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2010

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2011a

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2011b

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2011c

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2011d

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2011e

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2012a

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2012b

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Imazio 2013

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Imazio 2014a

Database duplicate

Imazio 2014b

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Iona 2014

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Jones 2000

Study was not an RCT

Judkins 2011

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Kaplan 1985

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Kaplan 1987

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Kaplan 1993

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Kar 1988

Colchicine not part of the treatment

Karaaslan 2014

Study was not an RCT

Kelly 1995

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Kershenobich 1979

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Kershenobich 1980

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Kisand 1996

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Koyuncu 2009

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Kulkarni 2014

Study was not an RCT

Kyle 1990

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Lenior 2001

Study was not conducted in adults

Leung 2010

Study was not an RCT

Leung 2011

Study was not an RCT

Liu 2002

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Lu 2014

Study was not an RCT

Luo 2001

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Maestroni 2011

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Maestroni 2013

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Maestroni 2014

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Mann 2014

Study was not an RCT

Masuda 1989

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Meek 1984

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Meek 1985

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Meek 1990

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Miettinen 1993

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Miettinen 1995

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Mimura 2009

Study was not an RCT

Mingxing 1983

Study was not an RCT

Moon 2011

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

NCT00004748

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Nidorf 2012

There are outcomes but reported in an uninterpretable way

Ozcelik 2014

Study was not an RCT

Podda 1993

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Poupon 1994

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Prieto 2003

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Raedsch 1991a

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Raedsch 1991b

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Raedsch 1992b

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Rask 1989

Study was not an RCT

Roche 1995

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Rockey 2006

Study was not an RCT

Rubinow 1981

Study was not an RCT

Ruhe 1949

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Rutecki 2006

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Sainz 1992

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Sais 1995a

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Schlesinger 2010a

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Schlesinger 2010b

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Schlesinger 2011a

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Schlesinger 2011b

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Schlesinger 2011c

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Schwarz 1990

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Sernet‐Gaudelus 2001

Study was not conducted in adults

Simmons 1990

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

So 2010

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Srivastava 2013

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Stamato 2006

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Trande 1996

No pertinent outcome reported at all

Trinchet 1983

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Trinchet 1985

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Tzvetkova 1990

Study was not an RCT

Vetter 2014

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Wallace 1967

Study was not an RCT

Wang 1992

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Wang 2014

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Warnes 1984

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Warnes 1985

Other publications of this study available; this publication provides no additional information

Wolff 1974

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Wright 1975

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Wu 1995

Study was not an RCT

Wu 2014

No pertinent outcome at all

Xu 1999

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Yang 2010

Study was not an RCT

Zemer 1974

Duration of follow‐up or treatment was too short

Zifroni 1991

All participants receive colchicine

Characteristics of studies awaiting classification [ordered by study ID]

Sais 1995b

Methods

N/A

Participants

N/A

Interventions

N/A

Outcomes

N/A

Notes

There is neither abstract nor full‐text available for this reference.

None

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

ACTRN12614000093684

Study name

LoDoCo2

Methods

Double‐blind, randomised trial

Participants

Coronary heart disease

Interventions

Colchicine (0.5 mg/d) vs placebo

Treatment duration (colchicine): 3 ‐ 4 years

Outcomes

Primary outcome: Time to first occurrence of either non‐fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, non‐cardio‐embolic ischaemic stroke or fatal or non‐fatal out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest; minimum of 3 years follow‐up for each individual, estimated median follow‐up of 4 years and a maximum follow‐up of 4 to 5 years (information through personal communication with the principal investigator who is also author of this review (MN)).

Secondary outcome: Time to first occurrence of either non‐fatal myocardial infarction or episode of unstable angina, unrelated to stent disease; other cardiovascular endpoints including new onset atrial fibrillation, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism as evidenced from the participant record; safety measures including rate of intolerance or serious adverse events including rhabdomyolysis as evidenced by the participant records. Rhabdomyolysis determined by acute onset of severe myonecrosis evident by marked elevation in serum creatinine kinase

Starting date

February 2014

Contact information

Mark Nidorf, MD, +61 413145410, [email protected]

Notes

ACTRN12614000093684

IRCT138807112539N1

Study name

IRCT138807112539N1

Methods

Double‐blind, randomised trial

Participants

Chronic hepatitis B

Interventions

Lamivudine + colchicine (0.5 mg/d) vs lamivudine + placebo

Treatment duration (colchicine): 6 months

Outcomes

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B. time point: 1 month before intervention and 1 month after intervention. Method of measurement: laboratory measurement of serum ALT‐ Albumin‐bilirubin and PT

Starting date

July 2009

Contact information

Amir Hassanpour, MD, +988614173608, +989166134349, +988614173630, [email protected]

Notes

IRCT138807112539N1

NCT01906749

Study name

COACS

Methods

Multicentre, double‐blind, randomised trial

Participants

Acute coronary syndrome

Interventions

Colchicine (0.5 mg/d) vs placebo

Treatment duration (colchicine): 24 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome: Combined endpoint (all‐cause mortality, new acute coronary syndrome, and ischaemic stroke); at 24 months

Secondary outcomes: Each of the combined outcome separately at 24 months

Starting date

June 2013

Contact information

Massimo Imazio, MD +39011439 ext 3391 [email protected]

Notes

NCT01906749

NCT02035891

Study name

CQMU‐2013‐QLi

Methods

Double‐blind, randomised trial

Participants

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria

Interventions

Colchicine (0.5 mg/d) vs placebo

Treatment duration (colchicine): unclear

Outcomes

Primary outcome: changes in UACR from baseline to the 6th month; changes in CIMT from baseline to the 18th month; incidence of overt nephropathy;composite cardiovascular events

Secondary outcome: Changes in 24 h urinary albumin; proportion of participants achieving at least a 15% reduction in UACR; changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); new or worsening diabetic neuropathy; new or worsening diabetic retinopathy; death from any cause; each component of primary outcomes of phase 4; overt nephropathy; new or worsening diabetic neuropathy; new or worsening diabetic retinopathy

Starting date

December 2013

Contact information

Qifu Li, First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University

Notes

NCT02035891

NCT02162303

Study name

COLPET

Methods

Double‐blind, randomised trial

Participants

Atherosclerotic vascular disease

Interventions

Colchicine (0.6 mg/d) vs placebo

Treatment duration (colchicine): 6 months

Outcomes

Primary outcome: Change in the average of maximum target‐to‐background (TBR) values (mean MAX TBR) of the ascending aorta; participants will be followed over a period of 6 months

Secondary outcome: Change in the mean maximum target‐to‐background (Mean MAX TBR) of carotid arteries; change in the average of the mean TBR values; change in the most diseased segment TBR values (MDS TBR) in the carotid arteries and ascending aorta; change in soluble biomarkers of inflammation

Starting date

May 2014

Contact information

Jean‐Claude Tardif, MD

Montreal Heart Institute

Notes

NCT02162303

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Colchicine vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

1.1.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

4

1230

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.26, 1.14]

1.1.2 Other

26

2944

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.84, 1.12]

1.2 Myocardial infarction (total) Show forest plot

2

652

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.57]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 2: Myocardial infarction (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 2: Myocardial infarction (total)

1.2.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.57]

1.2.2 Other

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.3 Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

652

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.07, 0.61]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

1.3.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.07, 0.61]

1.3.2 Other

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.4 Myocardial Infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 4: Myocardial Infarction (fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 4: Myocardial Infarction (fatal)

1.4.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

532

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

1.4.2 Other

5

378

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

1.5 Adverse event (serious) Show forest plot

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (serious)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (serious)

1.5.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.5.2 Other

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.6 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

1.6.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.6.2 Other

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

1.7 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

1.7.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

501

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.41 [1.43, 4.06]

1.7.2 Other

9

757

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.82, 3.02]

1.8 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 8: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 8: Mortality (cardiovascular)

1.8.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.02, 2.66]

1.8.2 Other

5

378

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.09, 3.32]

1.9 Stroke (total) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

1.9.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

1.9.2 Other

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.10 Stroke (fatal) Show forest plot

4

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

1.10.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.26 [0.14, 365.85]

1.10.2 Other

2

161

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.11 Stroke (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

1.11.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

1.11.2 Other

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.12 Heart failure (total) Show forest plot

3

426

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.10, 3.88]

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

1.12.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.01, 2.69]

1.12.2 Other

2

204

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.46, 2.51]

1.13 Heart failure (fatal) Show forest plot

3

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

1.13.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.00, 6.70]

1.13.2 Other

2

161

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.14 Heart failure (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

1.14.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.01, 2.12]

1.14.2 Other

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.15 Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total) Show forest plot

2

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

1.15.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.15.2 Other

2

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

1.16 Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

1.16.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.22, 2.85]

1.16.2 Other

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

2.1.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

21

2420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.67, 0.99]

2.1.2 > 1 mg/d

9

1754

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.93, 1.25]

2.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

2.2.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

5

955

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.06, 0.82]

2.2.2 > 1 mg/d

2

177

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.10 [0.13, 73.12]

2.3 Myocardial infarction (total) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (total)

2.3.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.57]

2.3.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.4 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 4: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 4: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

2.4.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

4

733

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.02, 0.87]

2.4.2 > 1 mg/d

2

177

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.66 [0.15, 386.16]

2.5 Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 5: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 5: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

2.5.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.07, 0.61]

2.5.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.6 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

2.6.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

8

687

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.75 [0.74, 4.14]

2.6.2 > 1 mg/d

3

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.47 [0.72, 2.97]

2.7 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

2.7.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

9

1104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.15 [1.26, 3.66]

2.7.2 > 1 mg/d

2

154

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.61, 2.19]

2.8 Adverse event (serious) Show forest plot

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 8: Adverse event (serious)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 8: Adverse event (serious)

2.8.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.8.2 > 1 mg/d

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.9 Stroke (total) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

2.9.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

2.9.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.10 Stroke (fatal) Show forest plot

4

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

2.10.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

3

795

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.26 [0.14, 365.85]

2.10.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.11 Stroke (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

2.11.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

2.11.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.12 Heart failure (total) Show forest plot

3

426

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.10, 3.88]

Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

2.12.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.01, 2.69]

2.12.2 > 1 mg/d

2

204

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.46, 2.51]

2.13 Heart failure (fatal) Show forest plot

3

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

2.13.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

2

263

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.00, 6.70]

2.13.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.14 Heart failure (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

342

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.01, 2.12]

Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

2.14.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

222

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.01, 2.12]

2.14.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.15 Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total) Show forest plot

2

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

2.15.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.31, 2.55]

2.15.2 > 1 mg/d

1

549

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

2.16 Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

2.16.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.22, 2.85]

2.16.2 > 1 mg/d

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

3.1.1 Placebo, inactive control

26

3479

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.84, 1.11]

3.1.2 Active control

4

695

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.41, 1.95]

3.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

3.2.1 Placebo, inactive control

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

3.2.2 Active control

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

3.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

3.3.1 Placebo, inactive control

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

3.3.2 Active control

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

3.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

3.4.1 Placebo, inactive control

9

725

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [0.90, 2.84]

3.4.2 Active control

2

588

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.41, 4.74]

3.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

3.5.1 Placebo, inactive control

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

3.5.2 Active control

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

4.1.1 Low risk

6

1411

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.87, 1.22]

4.1.2 High or unclear risk

24

2763

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.74, 1.11]

4.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

4.2.1 Low risk

2

652

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.01, 0.69]

4.2.2 High or unclear risk

5

480

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.15, 2.95]

4.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

4.3.1 Low risk

2

652

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

4.3.2 High or unclear risk

4

258

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

4.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

4.4.1 Low risk

3

415

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.61, 4.04]

4.4.2 High or unclear risk

8

898

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.81, 2.91]

4.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

4.5.1 Low risk

4

531

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.59, 2.04]

4.5.2 High or unclear risk

7

727

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.17 [1.49, 3.17]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

5.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

5.1.1 Double‐blind

22

2538

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.07]

5.1.2 Not clearly double‐blind

8

1636

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.82, 1.32]

5.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

5.2.1 Double‐blind

6

600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.15, 2.95]

5.2.2 Not clearly double‐blind

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.01, 0.69]

5.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

5.3.1 Double‐blind

5

378

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

5.3.2 Not clearly double‐blind

1

532

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

5.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

5.4.1 Double‐blind

6

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.77 [1.01, 3.12]

5.4.2 Not clearly double‐blind

5

732

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.49, 3.11]

5.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

5.5.1 Double‐blind

9

1198

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.75 [0.98, 3.14]

5.5.2 Not clearly double‐blind

2

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

5.91 [0.32, 110.47]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

6.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

6.1.1 Outcome assessment blinded

4

1582

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.88, 1.25]

6.1.2 Not clearly blinded

26

2592

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.75, 1.09]

6.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

6.2.1 Outcome assessment blinded

3

874

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.02, 2.66]

6.2.2 Not clearly blinded

4

258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.09, 3.32]

6.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

6.3.1 Outcome assessment blinded

2

652

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

6.3.2 Not clearly blinded

4

258

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

6.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

6.4.1 Outcome assessment blinded

3

444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.58, 1.93]

6.4.2 Not clearly blinded

8

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.07 [1.03, 4.16]

6.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

6.5.1 Outcome assessment blinded

5

977

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.44 [0.77, 2.68]

6.5.2 Not clearly blinded

6

281

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

5.06 [0.92, 27.72]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

7.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

7.1.1 Low risk

6

1548

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.89, 1.25]

7.1.2 High or unclear risk

24

2626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.73, 1.09]

7.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

7.2.1 Low risk

3

630

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.01, 13.68]

7.2.2 High or unclear risk

4

502

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.07, 2.30]

7.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

7.3.1 Low risk

3

630

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.06, 15.36]

7.3.2 High or unclear risk

3

280

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.01, 1.18]

7.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

7.4.1 Low risk

2

360

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.66, 2.51]

7.4.2 High or unclear risk

9

953

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.72 [0.89, 3.33]

7.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

7.5.1 Low risk

3

639

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.87, 3.16]

7.5.2 High or unclear risk

8

619

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.18 [0.94, 5.04]

Open in table viewer
Comparison 8. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

8.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

8.1.1 Full journal publication

26

3303

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.09]

8.1.2 Abstract only

4

871

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.58, 1.57]

8.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

8.2.1 Full journal publication

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

8.2.2 Abstract only

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

8.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

8.3.1 Full journal publication

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

8.3.2 Abstract only

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

8.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

8.4.1 Full journal publication

9

725

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [0.90, 2.84]

8.4.2 Abstract only

2

588

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.41, 4.74]

8.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

8.5.1 Full journal publication

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

8.5.2 Abstract only

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Study Flow

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study Flow

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Funnel plot: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Funnel plot: Mortality (all‐cause)

Funnel plot: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Funnel plot: Adverse event (total)

Funnel plot: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Funnel plot: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Overview of results of meta‐analyses for colchicine treatment vs. controlES: Effect Estimate; OR: Peto Odds Ratio; RR: risk ratio. * including one study without events ** including two studies without events.Effects for some outcomes were estimated using Peto Odds Ratios because this is a more appropriate method when event rates are very low.

Figuras y tablas -
Figure 7

Overview of results of meta‐analyses for colchicine treatment vs. control

ES: Effect Estimate; OR: Peto Odds Ratio; RR: risk ratio. * including one study without events ** including two studies without events.

Effects for some outcomes were estimated using Peto Odds Ratios because this is a more appropriate method when event rates are very low.

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 2: Myocardial infarction (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 2: Myocardial infarction (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 4: Myocardial Infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 4: Myocardial Infarction (fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (serious)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (serious)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 8: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 8: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Colchicine vs control, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 4: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 4: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 5: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 5: Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 6: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 7: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 8: Adverse event (serious)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 8: Adverse event (serious)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 9: Stroke (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 10: Stroke (fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 11: Stroke (non‐fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 12: Heart failure (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 13: Heart failure (fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 14: Heart failure (non‐fatal)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 15: Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total)

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2: Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d, Outcome 16: Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control, Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.4

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.5

Comparison 4: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 1: Mortality (all‐cause)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 2: Mortality (cardiovascular)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 3: Myocardial infarction (fatal)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 4: Adverse event (total)

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8: Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only), Outcome 5: Adverse event (gastrointestinal)

Summary of findings 1. Colchicine compared to any control treatment for prevention of cardiovascular events

Colchicine compared to any control treatment for prevention of cardiovascular events

Patient or population: any patient population and people with high cardiovascular risk
Settings: any
Intervention: Colchicine
Comparison: Any control treatment

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Any control treatment

Colchicine

Mortality (all‐cause)
Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 14 years

193 per 1000

182 per 1000
(157 to 211)

RR 0.94
(0.82 to 1.09)

4174
(30 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Patients with high cardiovascular risk

32 per 1000

17 per 1000
(8 to 36)

RR 0.54
(0.26 to 1.14)

1230
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 3 years

Mortality (cardiovascular)
Follow‐up: 0.5‐14 years

27 per 1000

9 per 1000
(2 to 32)

RR 0.34
(0.09 to 1.21)

1132
(7 studies)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

Patients with high cardiovascular risk

31 per 1000

8 per 1000
(1 to 81)

RR 0.25
(0.02 to 2.66)

754
(2 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low2,3

Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 3 years

Myocardial Infarction (total)
Follow‐up: mean 3 years

58 per 1000

12 per 1000
(4 to 33)

RR 0.20
(0.07 to 0.57)

652
(2 studies4)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate5

Most evidence provided by a single study

Patients with high cardiovascular risk

Study population

RR 0.20
(0.07 to 0.57)

532
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate5

Evidence provided by a single study.

Follow‐up: mean 3 years

Please see footnote6

72 per 1000

18 per 1000
(5 to 41)

Assumed 1‐year risk

25 per 1000

6 per 1000
(2 to 14)

Adverse event (total)
Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 14 years

Study population

RR 1.52
(0.93 to 2.46)

1313
(11 studies)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,7,8

No study in participants with high cardiovascular risk reported on total adverse events.9

89 per 1000

135 per 1000
(83 to 219)

Assumed 1‐year risk

89 per 1000

135 per 1000
(83 to 219)

Adverse event (gastrointestinal)
Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 14 years

Study population

RR 1.83
(1.03 to 3.26)

1258
(11 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low8,12

Please see footnote9

132 per 1000

242 per 1000
(136 to 431)

Assumed 1‐year risk

132 per 1000

242 per 1000
(136 to 430)

Adverse event (serious)
Follow‐up: mean 824 patient‐years

See comment

See comment

Not estimable

472
(4 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low10,11

No illustration of comparative risks due to very uncertain assumed risks10,11

Heart failure (total)
Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 3 years

See comment

See comment

RR 0.62
(0.10 to 3.88)

426
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,4,5

No illustration of comparative risks due to very uncertain assumed risks

Stroke (total)
Follow‐up: 0.5 ‐ 3 years

See comment

See comment

OR 0.38
(0.09 to 1.70)

874
(3 studies)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low3,4,5

No illustration of comparative risks due to very uncertain assumed risks

*The basis for the assumed risk is the mean control group risk across studies if not otherwise stated in comments/footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Peto Odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Confidence interval is compatible with participant‐relevant benefit and harm.
2Small number of events therefore downgraded for imprecision.
3Substantial imprecision because confidence interval compatible with major harm and major benefit.
4One study without events.
5Effect based on small number of events.
6For balancing benefits and harms using absolute risk measures (1‐year risk), we extrapolated the 1‐year risk of myocardial events assuming that the risk is constant over the entire follow‐up.
7High risk for attrition bias in 5 of 10 studies.
8Visual inspection of funnel plot shows asymmetry; lack of small studies reporting lower adverse event rates with colchicine than with comparator (the rate of adverse events with colchicine may appear too high due to bias).
9For balancing benefits and harms using absolute risk measures (1‐year risk), we assumed that all adverse events observed over the entire follow‐up accumulate within the first year of treatment.
10Only four studies reported on serious adverse events (zero events in approximately 800 patient‐years). In many other studies events occurred (e.g. deaths) that could be regarded as serious adverse events.
11No indication for publication bias, but reporting quality very limited.
12Substantial between‐study heterogeneity (I² = 74%) without plausible explanation.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 1. Colchicine compared to any control treatment for prevention of cardiovascular events
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies: Summary

All Studies

Studies in participants with
high cardiovascular risk

Total number of studies

39 (100%)

4 (100%)

No. of participants in all studies

4992

1230

Publication year, median (range)

1996 (1974 ‐ 2014)

2013 (1992 ‐ 2014)

Publication year < 2000

24 (62%)

1 (25%)

Multicentre studies

9 (23%)

0 (0%)

Study size, median (IQR)

84 (54 ‐ 129)

251 (210 ‐ 406)

Participant age, median (IQR)

54 (51 ‐ 61)

66 (63 ‐ 67)

Men, median (IQR)

62 (25 ‐ 87)

77 (66 ‐ 88)

Follow‐up¹

0.5 to 1 year

6 (15%)

3 (75%)

1 to 3 years

17 (44%)

0 (0%)

> 3 years

15 (38%)

1 (25%)

Colchicine treatment

≤ 1 mg/d

27 (69%)

3 (75%)

> 1 mg/d

12 (31%)

1 (25%)

Control treatment, n (%)

Active treatment

8 (21%)

0 (0%)

Inactive, placebo

31 (79%)

4 (100%)

Clinical setting

CVD, arteriosclerotic

3 (8%)

3 (75%)

CVD, other

1 (3%)

1 (25%)

Hepatobiliary disease

25 (64%)

0 (0%)

Other

10 (26%)

0 (0%)

Cardiovascular risk profile

Primary prevention

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Secondary prevention

4 (10%)

4 (100%)

Not specified

34 (87%)

0 (0%)

Number of studies (% of column total) if not stated otherwise.
IQR: Interquartile range
1Longest follow‐up period for an outcome that was used in this systematic review.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies: Summary
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies: Overview

Study
(Reference)

Participants
(n)

Centres

Clinical
setting

Age*
(y)

Men (%)

Colchicine dose (mg/d)

Control

Follow‐up
(yrs)ₑ

Studies in patients with high cardiovascular risk

Deftereos 2013

222

Single

PCI/CVD

64

65

2 x 0.5

Placebo

0.5

Deftereos 2014a

279

Single

Heart failure

67

67

1 ‐ 2 x 0.5²

Placebo

0.5

Nidorf 2013

532

Single

PCI/CVD

67

89

0.5

Usual care³

3

O'Keefe 1992

197

Single

PCI/CVD

61

86

2 x 0.6

Placebo

0.5

Other studies

Adhami 1998

52

Single

Liver disease

54

87

1⁴

Placebo

11

Almasio 2000

90

Multi

PBC

55

10

1

Placebo⁵

3

Antoniou 2006

50

Multi

Other

68

84

1

IFN‐gamma⁶

2.1

Bodenheimer 1988

57

N/R

PBC

52

9

2 x 0.6

Placebo

2.2

Buligescu 1989

180

N/R.

Liver disease

N/R

N/R

1

“Conventional therapy”

3

Colman 1998

129

N/R

Liver disease

N/R

N/R

1

Placebo

3.8

Copilot

555

N/R

Liver disease

51

70

2 x 0.6

Peg‐IFN‐alpha

2

CORE

84

Single

Other

54

35

1 ‐ 2 x 0.5²

Usual care³,

1.7

CORP

120

Multi

Other

48

46

0.5 ‐ 1²

Placebo⁸

2

CORP‐2

240

Multi

Other

49

50

1 ‐ 2 x 0.5²

Placebo

1.7

Cortez‐Pinto 2002

62

Single

Liver disease

54

89

1⁴

Placebo

3.4

Douglas 1998

26

Single

Other

68

77

0.6 ‐ 1.2⁹

Prednisone

2.5

Ikeda 1996

22

Single

PBC

61

14

1

Usual care ³,

2

Kaplan 1986

60

Single

PBC

N/Rₑ⁰

5

2 x 0.6

Placebo

2

Kaplan 1999

87

Single

PBC

51

6

2 x 0.6

Methotrexateₑₑ

10

Kershenobich 1976

28

N/R

Liver disease

N/R

N/R

1⁴

Placebo

2

Kershenobich 1988

100

Single

Liver disease

51

50

1⁴

Placebo

14

Kyle 1985

101

Single

Other

63

58

2 x 0.6ₑ²

Melphalan/prednisone

5

Kyle 1997

148

N/R

Other

64

N/R

2 x 0.6

Usual care ³,ₑ³

9

Lin 1996

66

Single

Liver disease

40

88

1⁴

Usual care³

4

Lukina 1995

54

N/R

Other

N/R

N/R

1 ‐ 2

Dimethyl sulfoxide

2 or 7ₑ⁴

Morgan 2005

549

Multi

Liver disease

56

98

2 x 0.6

Placebo

6

Muntoni 2010

74

Single

Liver disease

53

62

1

"usual treatment for cirrhosis"

4

Nikolaidis 2006

38

Single

Liver disease

51

61

1d

Usual care³

1

Olsson 1995

84

Multi

PSC

42

67

1

Placebo

3

Parise 1995

41

Single

Liver disease

49

88

1

Placebo

1

Paulus 1974

52

Multi

Other

53

100

3 x 0.5

Placeboₑ⁵

0.5

Poupon 1996

74

Multi

PBC

54

15

1⁴

Placebo⁵

2

Raedsch 1992

28

Single

PBC

54

0

1

Placebo⁵

2

Reinhardt 1986

74

Single

Liver disease

N/R

N/R

4 x 0.25d

Placebo

3

Trinchet 1989

67

Single

Liver disease

52

57

1

Placebo

0.5

Vuoristo 1995

90

Multi

Liver disease

57

14

2x 0.5

Placebo

2

Wang 1994

100

Single

Liver disease

60

94

1

Placebo

2.2

Warnes 1987

64

Single

PBC

N/R

N/R

2x 0.5

Placebo

1.5

Yurdakul 2001

116

Single

Other

27

53

2 ‐ 4 x 0.5²

Placebo

2

*Age is reported as mean in all studies but three: Antoniou 2006; Kyle 1985; Nikolaidis 2006 reported median age.

1Longest mean follow‐up‐period for a review‐relevant outcome.
2Weight adjusted maintenance dose.
3We assume usual care, but this was not explicitly reported.
4Five days per week.
5Ursodeoxycholic acid in both groups.
6Prednisolone in both groups.
7Aspirin in both groups.
8Aspirin or Ibuprofen in both groups.
9As tolerated.
1080% > 50 years.
11Ursodeoxycholic acid in both groups after 2 years.
12Increased in 0.6 mg steps (as tolerated). Median dose 1.5 mg/d.
13Melphalan and prednisone in both groups.
14Two years in colchicine group, 7 years in control group.
15Probenecid in both groups.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies: Overview
Table 3. Results of subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Outcome

Studies (n)

Events

(n)

Participants

(n)

Summary effect
(95% CI)

Heterogeneity (I²), %

Subgroup effect (P value)

Participants with high cardiovascular risk

All‐cause mortality

4

29

1230

RR 0.54 (0.26 to 1.14)

0%

0.13

Cardiovascular mortality

2

13

754

RR 0.25 (0.02 to 2.66)

49%

N/C

Myocardial infarction

  • fatal or non‐fatal

1

22

532

RR 0.20 (0.07 to 0.57)

N/C

  • fatal

1

1

532

RR 0.30 (0.01 to 7.22)

N/C

  • non‐fatal

1

21

532

RR 0.21 (0.07 to 0.61)

N/C

Stroke

  • fatal or non‐fatal

2

7

754

OR 0.38 (0.09 to 1.70)

0%

N/C

  • fatal

2

1

754

OR 7.26 (0.14 to 365.85)

N/C

  • non‐fatal

2

6

754

OR 0.23 (0.05 to 1.17)

0%

N/C

Heart failure

  • fatal or non‐fatal

1

3

222

RR 0.14 (0.01 to 2.69)

N/C

  • fatal

1

1

222

RR 0.33 (0.01 to 7.95)

N/C

  • non‐fatal

1

2

222

RR 0.20 (0.01 to 4.05)

N/C

Hospitalisation

0

Cardiovascular intervention

1

9

222

RR 0.79 (0.22 to 2.85)

N/C

Adverse event, any

0

N/C

Adverse event, gastrointestinal

2

62

501

RR 2.41 (1.43 to 4.06)

0%

N/C

Colchicine dose

All‐cause mortality

≤ 1mg/d

21

268

2420

RR 0.82 (0.67 to 0.99)

0%

0.03

> 1mg/d

9

505

1754

RR 1.08 (0.93 to 1.25)

31%

Adverse event, any

≤ 1mg/d

7

60

687

RR 1.75 (0.74 to 4.14)

40%

0.75

> 1mg/d

3

87

626

RR 1.47 (0.72 to 2.97)

73%

Peto odds ratio for outcomes with event rates between 1% and 5%

All‐cause mortality in participants with high cardiovascular risk

4

29

1230

OR 0.53 (0.25 to 1.11)

0%

Cardiovascular mortality

7

17

1132

OR 0.24 (0.09 to 0.64)

15%

Mantel‐Haenszel risk ratio without zero correction for outcomes with event rates between 1% and 5%

All‐cause mortality in participants with high cardiovascular risk

4

29

1230

RR 0.54 (0.26 to 1.12)

0%

Cardiovascular mortality

7

17

1132

RR 0.20 (0.06 to 0.68)

0%

N/C: not calculated
OR: Peto odds ratio
RR: risk ratio

Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Results of subgroup and sensitivity analyses
Comparison 1. Colchicine vs control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

1.1.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

4

1230

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.26, 1.14]

1.1.2 Other

26

2944

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.97 [0.84, 1.12]

1.2 Myocardial infarction (total) Show forest plot

2

652

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.57]

1.2.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.57]

1.2.2 Other

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.3 Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

652

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.07, 0.61]

1.3.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.07, 0.61]

1.3.2 Other

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.4 Myocardial Infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

1.4.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

532

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

1.4.2 Other

5

378

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

1.5 Adverse event (serious) Show forest plot

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.5.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.5.2 Other

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.6 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

1.6.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.6.2 Other

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

1.7 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

1.7.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

501

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.41 [1.43, 4.06]

1.7.2 Other

9

757

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.82, 3.02]

1.8 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

1.8.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.02, 2.66]

1.8.2 Other

5

378

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.09, 3.32]

1.9 Stroke (total) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

1.9.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

1.9.2 Other

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.10 Stroke (fatal) Show forest plot

4

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.10.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.26 [0.14, 365.85]

1.10.2 Other

2

161

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.11 Stroke (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

1.11.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

1.11.2 Other

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.12 Heart failure (total) Show forest plot

3

426

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.10, 3.88]

1.12.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.01, 2.69]

1.12.2 Other

2

204

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.46, 2.51]

1.13 Heart failure (fatal) Show forest plot

3

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.13.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.00, 6.70]

1.13.2 Other

2

161

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.14 Heart failure (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.14.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.01, 2.12]

1.14.2 Other

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.15 Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total) Show forest plot

2

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

1.15.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

1.15.2 Other

2

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

1.16 Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.16.1 Participants with high cardiovascular risk

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.22, 2.85]

1.16.2 Other

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Colchicine vs control
Comparison 2. Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

2.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

2.1.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

21

2420

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.67, 0.99]

2.1.2 > 1 mg/d

9

1754

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.93, 1.25]

2.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

2.2.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

5

955

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.22 [0.06, 0.82]

2.2.2 > 1 mg/d

2

177

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

3.10 [0.13, 73.12]

2.3 Myocardial infarction (total) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.3.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.07, 0.57]

2.3.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.4 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

2.4.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

4

733

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.02, 0.87]

2.4.2 > 1 mg/d

2

177

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.66 [0.15, 386.16]

2.5 Myocardial infarction (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.5.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.21 [0.07, 0.61]

2.5.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.6 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

2.6.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

8

687

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.75 [0.74, 4.14]

2.6.2 > 1 mg/d

3

626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.47 [0.72, 2.97]

2.7 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

2.7.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

9

1104

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.15 [1.26, 3.66]

2.7.2 > 1 mg/d

2

154

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.61, 2.19]

2.8 Adverse event (serious) Show forest plot

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.8.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

4

472

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.8.2 > 1 mg/d

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.9 Stroke (total) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

2.9.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.09, 1.70]

2.9.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.10 Stroke (fatal) Show forest plot

4

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.10.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

3

795

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.26 [0.14, 365.85]

2.10.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.11 Stroke (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

3

874

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

2.11.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

2

754

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.05, 1.17]

2.11.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.12 Heart failure (total) Show forest plot

3

426

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.10, 3.88]

2.12.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.01, 2.69]

2.12.2 > 1 mg/d

2

204

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.07 [0.46, 2.51]

2.13 Heart failure (fatal) Show forest plot

3

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.13.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

2

263

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.00, 6.70]

2.13.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.14 Heart failure (non‐fatal) Show forest plot

2

342

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.01, 2.12]

2.14.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

222

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.13 [0.01, 2.12]

2.14.2 > 1 mg/d

1

120

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

2.15 Non‐scheduled hospitalisation (total) Show forest plot

2

599

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

2.15.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.31, 2.55]

2.15.2 > 1 mg/d

1

549

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.77, 0.99]

2.16 Non‐scheduled cardiovascular interventions Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.16.1 ≤ 1 mg/d

1

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.22, 2.85]

2.16.2 > 1 mg/d

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. Colchicine vs control: subgroup analysis ‐ colchicine dose fixed ≤ 1 mg/d
Comparison 3. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

3.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

3.1.1 Placebo, inactive control

26

3479

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.84, 1.11]

3.1.2 Active control

4

695

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.41, 1.95]

3.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

3.2.1 Placebo, inactive control

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

3.2.2 Active control

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

3.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

3.3.1 Placebo, inactive control

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

3.3.2 Active control

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

3.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

3.4.1 Placebo, inactive control

9

725

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [0.90, 2.84]

3.4.2 Active control

2

588

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.41, 4.74]

3.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

3.5.1 Placebo, inactive control

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

3.5.2 Active control

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ placebo or other inactive control
Comparison 4. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

4.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

4.1.1 Low risk

6

1411

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.87, 1.22]

4.1.2 High or unclear risk

24

2763

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.74, 1.11]

4.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

4.2.1 Low risk

2

652

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.01, 0.69]

4.2.2 High or unclear risk

5

480

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.15, 2.95]

4.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

4.3.1 Low risk

2

652

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

4.3.2 High or unclear risk

4

258

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

4.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

4.4.1 Low risk

3

415

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.61, 4.04]

4.4.2 High or unclear risk

8

898

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.81, 2.91]

4.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

4.5.1 Low risk

4

531

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.10 [0.59, 2.04]

4.5.2 High or unclear risk

7

727

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.17 [1.49, 3.17]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment)
Comparison 5. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

5.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

5.1.1 Double‐blind

22

2538

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.07]

5.1.2 Not clearly double‐blind

8

1636

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.82, 1.32]

5.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

5.2.1 Double‐blind

6

600

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.15, 2.95]

5.2.2 Not clearly double‐blind

1

532

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.01, 0.69]

5.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

5.3.1 Double‐blind

5

378

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

5.3.2 Not clearly double‐blind

1

532

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

5.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

5.4.1 Double‐blind

6

581

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.77 [1.01, 3.12]

5.4.2 Not clearly double‐blind

5

732

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.49, 3.11]

5.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

5.5.1 Double‐blind

9

1198

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.75 [0.98, 3.14]

5.5.2 Not clearly double‐blind

2

60

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

5.91 [0.32, 110.47]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ performance bias (double‐blinded studies)
Comparison 6. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

6.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

6.1.1 Outcome assessment blinded

4

1582

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.88, 1.25]

6.1.2 Not clearly blinded

26

2592

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.75, 1.09]

6.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

6.2.1 Outcome assessment blinded

3

874

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.02, 2.66]

6.2.2 Not clearly blinded

4

258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.09, 3.32]

6.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

6.3.1 Outcome assessment blinded

2

652

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.00, 6.04]

6.3.2 Not clearly blinded

4

258

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.05, 2.47]

6.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

6.4.1 Outcome assessment blinded

3

444

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.58, 1.93]

6.4.2 Not clearly blinded

8

869

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.07 [1.03, 4.16]

6.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

6.5.1 Outcome assessment blinded

5

977

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.44 [0.77, 2.68]

6.5.2 Not clearly blinded

6

281

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

5.06 [0.92, 27.72]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment)
Comparison 7. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

7.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

7.1.1 Low risk

6

1548

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.89, 1.25]

7.1.2 High or unclear risk

24

2626

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.73, 1.09]

7.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

7.2.1 Low risk

3

630

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.01, 13.68]

7.2.2 High or unclear risk

4

502

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.07, 2.30]

7.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

7.3.1 Low risk

3

630

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.06, 15.36]

7.3.2 High or unclear risk

3

280

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [0.01, 1.18]

7.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

7.4.1 Low risk

2

360

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.66, 2.51]

7.4.2 High or unclear risk

9

953

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.72 [0.89, 3.33]

7.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

7.5.1 Low risk

3

639

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.65 [0.87, 3.16]

7.5.2 High or unclear risk

8

619

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

2.18 [0.94, 5.04]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ attrition bias (incomplete outcome data)
Comparison 8. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only)

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

8.1 Mortality (all‐cause) Show forest plot

30

4174

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.82, 1.09]

8.1.1 Full journal publication

26

3303

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.80, 1.09]

8.1.2 Abstract only

4

871

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.58, 1.57]

8.2 Mortality (cardiovascular) Show forest plot

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

8.2.1 Full journal publication

7

1132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.09, 1.21]

8.2.2 Abstract only

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

8.3 Myocardial infarction (fatal) Show forest plot

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

8.3.1 Full journal publication

6

910

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.28 [0.05, 1.62]

8.3.2 Abstract only

0

0

Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable

8.4 Adverse event (total) Show forest plot

11

1313

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.93, 2.46]

8.4.1 Full journal publication

9

725

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [0.90, 2.84]

8.4.2 Abstract only

2

588

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.39 [0.41, 4.74]

8.5 Adverse event (gastrointestinal) Show forest plot

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

8.5.1 Full journal publication

11

1258

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.83 [1.03, 3.26]

8.5.2 Abstract only

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Not estimable

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. Colchicine vs control: sensitivity analysis ‐ reporting bias (selective reporting, i.e. abstract publication only)