secondary prevention

Colchicine for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

Author/s: 
Fahim Ebrahimi, Ramin Ebrahimi, Maximilian Beer, Christof Manuel Schönenberger, Hannah Ewald, Matthias Briel, Perrine Janiaud, Julian Hirt

Rationale
People with cardiovascular disease are at risk of recurrent major adverse cardiovascular events, and chronic low‐grade inflammation may be a major underlying factor. Treatment with low‐dose colchicine has been proposed for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. A previous Cochrane review showed considerable uncertainty regarding the benefits and harms of this approach.

Objectives
To evaluate the benefits and harms of low‐dose colchicine in the prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with a history of stable CVD or following myocardial infarction or stroke.

Search methods
We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature until February 2025 using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the drugs@FDA database, references of key papers, and references of included studies.

Eligibility criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of low‐dose colchicine for a minimum of six months versus any control intervention in patients of any age with cardiovascular disease (i.e. history of stable cardiovascular disease, previous myocardial infarction or stroke).

Outcomes
Our critical outcomes were all‐cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and serious adverse events.

Our important outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, stroke, all‐cause hospitalisations, coronary revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)/angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)), quality of life, and gastrointestinal adverse events (i.e. diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal pain, or vomiting).

Risk of bias
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool.

Synthesis methods
We conducted meta‐analyses using the random‐effects model. We generated forest plots to facilitate visualisation of the data. We did not perform any subgroup analysis.

We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all critical outcomes and for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and coronary revascularisation. This was carried out by two review authors working independently.

Included studies
We included 12 studies involving 22,983 randomised participants. The follow‐up in the studies ranged from 6 to 80 months. Overall, 11,524 participants were assigned to low‐dose colchicine treatment and 11,459 were assigned to a control intervention, which constituted either usual care plus placebo or usual care only. The doses of colchicine used were 0.5 mg once or twice daily. At baseline, the mean age of participants ranged from 57 to 74 years. Most participants (79.4%) were male.

Synthesis of results
There is high‐certainty evidence that low‐dose colchicine treatment reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.96; 22,153 participants, 8 studies; I2 = 51%), yielding an absolute risk reduction of 9 fewer events (95% CI 16 fewer to 2 fewer) per 1000 patients, when the myocardial infarction rate is about 4% (36 events per 1000 patients) in the control group.

There is also high‐certainty evidence that low‐dose colchicine reduces the risk of stroke with a RR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; 22,483 participants, 10 studies; I2 = 40%), yielding an absolute risk reduction of 8 fewer events (95% CI 12 fewer to 1 fewer) per 1000 patients, when the stroke rate is about 2% (22 events per 1000 patients) in the control group.

There is high‐certainty evidence that the use of low‐dose colchicine does not increase the rate of serious adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; 15,677 participants, 4 studies; I2 = 0%). However, gastrointestinal adverse events were more common under treatment with colchicine (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.57; 22,185 participants, 10 studies; I2 = 91%).

For all other outcomes assessed, the evidence is of moderate certainty. Colchicine probably results in little to no difference in all‐cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 22,747 participants, 10 studies; I2 = 1%; moderate‐certainty evidence), in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22; 22,271 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 13%; moderate‐certainty evidence), and coronary revascularisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.08; 13,705 participants, 5 studies; I2 = 40%; moderate‐certainty evidence).

There is no evidence about the benefits or harms of colchicine on quality‐of‐life or on the risk of all‐cause hospitalisation.

Authors' conclusions
People with cardiovascular disease using low‐dose colchicine as secondary prevention for at least six months benefit from reduced rates of myocardial infarction and stroke, without an increase in serious adverse events. Moderate‐certainty evidence did not show a benefit from low‐dose colchicine for the risk of mortality (i.e. all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality) or coronary revascularisation rates. Colchicine use was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse events, which were typically described as mild and transient in nature. Additional studies are warranted to investigate the benefits and harms of low‐dose colchicine in relevant subgroups and in specific indications, such as long‐term use in individuals with stable coronary artery disease versus limited‐time use following acute coronary syndrome.

Funding
Review author FE was supported by the Margot und Erich Goldschmidt & Peter René Jacobson Foundation. Review author CMS was supported by the Janggen Pöhn Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation (MD‐PhD grant Number: 323530_221860).

Registration
This review is based on its protocol, which is available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD014808, and a previous review, which is available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD011047.pub2.

Alcohol Abstinence in Drinkers with Atrial Fibrillation

Author/s: 
Voskoboinik, A., Kalman, J.M., De Silva, A., Nicholls, T., Costello, B., Nanayakkara, S., Prabhu, S., Stub, D., Azzopardi, S., Vizi, D., Wong, G., Nalliah, C., Sugumar, H., Wong, M., Kotschet, E., Kaye D., Taylor, A.J., Kistler, P.M.

BACKGROUND:

Excessive alcohol consumption is associated with incident atrial fibrillation and adverse atrial remodeling; however, the effect of abstinence from alcohol on secondary prevention of atrial fibrillation is unclear.

METHODS:

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial at six hospitals in Australia. Adults who consumed 10 or more standard drinks (with 1 standard drink containing approximately 12 g of pure alcohol) per week and who had paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation in sinus rhythm at baseline were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either abstain from alcohol or continue their usual alcohol consumption. The two primary end points were freedom from recurrence of atrial fibrillation (after a 2-week "blanking period") and total atrial fibrillation burden (proportion of time in atrial fibrillation) during 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS:

Of 140 patients who underwent randomization (85% men; mean [±SD] age, 62±9 years), 70 were assigned to the abstinence group and 70 to the control group. Patients in the abstinence group reduced their alcohol intake from 16.8±7.7 to 2.1±3.7 standard drinks per week (a reduction of 87.5%), and patients in the control group reduced their alcohol intake from 16.4±6.9 to 13.2±6.5 drinks per week (a reduction of 19.5%). After a 2-week blanking period, atrial fibrillation recurred in 37 of 70 patients (53%) in the abstinence group and in 51 of 70 patients (73%) in the control group. The abstinence group had a longer period before recurrence of atrial fibrillation than the control group (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.84; P = 0.005). The atrial fibrillation burden over 6 months of follow-up was significantly lower in the abstinence group than in the control group (median percentage of time in atrial fibrillation, 0.5% [interquartile range, 0.0 to 3.0] vs. 1.2% [interquartile range, 0.0 to 10.3]; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS:

Abstinence from alcohol reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation. (Funded by the Government of Victoria Operational Infrastructure Support Program and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12616000256471.).

Keywords 

2018 Cholesterol Clinical Practice Guidelines: Synopsis of the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety Cholesterol Guideline

Author/s: 
Grundy, Scott M, Stone, Neil J., Guideline Writing Committee for the 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines

Description:

In November 2018, the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) released a new clinical practice guideline on cholesterol management. It was accompanied by a risk assessment report on primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods:

A panel of experts free of recent and relevant industry-related conflicts was chosen to carry out systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined cardiovascular outcomes. High-quality observational studies were used for estimation of ASCVD risk. An independent panel systematically reviewed RCT evidence about the benefits and risks of adding nonstatin medications to statin therapy compared with receiving statin therapy alone in persons who have or are at high risk for ASCVD.

Recommendation:

The guideline endorses a heart-healthy lifestyle beginning in childhood to reduce lifetime risk for ASCVD. It contains several new features compared with the 2013 guideline. For secondary prevention, patients at very high risk may be candidates for adding nonstatin medications (ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 [PCSK9] inhibitors) to statin therapy. In primary prevention, a clinician–patient risk discussion is still strongly recommended before a decision is made about statin treatment. The AHA/ACC risk calculator first triages patients into 4 risk categories. Those at intermediate risk deserve a focused clinician–patient discussion before initiation of statin therapy. Among intermediate-risk patients, identification of risk-enhancing factors and coronary artery calcium testing can assist in the decision to use a statin. Compared with the 2013 guideline, the new guideline gives more attention to percentage reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a treatment goal and to long-term monitoring of therapeutic efficacy. To simplify monitoring, nonfasting lipid measurements are allowed.

Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Weighing Up the Evidence

Author/s: 
Murphy, Sean, McCarthy, Cian P., McEvoy, John W.

Aspirin is one of the most universally recognized and commonly prescribed medications worldwide. It is estimated that 48.7 million U.S. adults are taking aspirin for cardiovascular disease prevention; the majority (~73%) for primary prevention. The benefit of aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease is well-established, with meta-analysis results favoring low dose (75–150 mg/day) over high dose (>150 mg/day) aspirin given similar efficacy but lower bleeding risk. In contrast, the role of aspirin in primary cardiovascular disease prevention is more controversial; historical trials found benefit but trials since 2008 have shown either null effects on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality or a signal for increased mortality in the context of excess bleeding.

Subscribe to secondary prevention