Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

7 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Colchicine Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease.

ABSTRACT: Background: Evidence from recent studies has shown the benefits of colchicine for patients with coronary artery disease. The aim was to assess the effect of colchicine treatment on cardiovascular events, with an estimation of the risk of discontinuation and net clinical benefit. Methods and Results: Fourteen trials with a total of 13,186 patients were selected through a systematic search. Colchicine therapy significantly reduced the relative risk of primary endpoint by about 30% [RR 0.70 (95%CI:0.56-0.88)]. Compared with placebo, colchicine significantly reduced the risk of ischemia-driven revascularization [RR 0.57 (95%CI 0.41-0.80)], ischemia-driven revascularization and resuscitation [RR 0.50 (95%CI 0.34-0.73)], myocardial infarction [RR 0.73 (95%CI 0.57-0.95)], and stroke [RR 0.49 (95%CI 0.30-0.7)]. Patients treated with colchicine in comparison with placebo have a significant increase in the risk of treatment cessation (RR 1.60 95%CI 1.06-2.42). However, in the analysis which excluded studies without placebo, the relative risk of discontinuation was smaller (RR 1.34 95%CI 0.97-1.84) and in the three largest studies, the risk of discontinuation was lower and insignificant [RR 1.26 (95%CI 0.87-1.83)]. The net clinical benefit was 17.8/1,000 patients (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In coronary artery disease, low-dose colchicine significantly reduces the risk of the primary composite endpoint by about 30%. The drug should be considered as part of the preventive treatment in patients with good tolerance.

SUBMITTER: Grajek S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8696075 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Low-Dose Colchicine in Coronary Artery Disease　- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:Background: Recent studies have revealed the benefits of using colchicine, a drug with anti-inflammatory properties, in coronary artery disease (CAD). This study systematically reviewed the benefits and risks of low-dose colchicine in patients with CAD. Methods and Results: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases (March 2020). Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated. Estimates are expressed as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 test. Confidence in the pooled evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework. Colchicine reduced the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.86; 6 RCTs; I2=50%; 11,718 patients; GRADE, moderate confidence), acute coronary syndrome (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.90; I2=47%; 7 RCTs; 11,955 patients; GRADE, very low confidence), stroke (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.30-0.78; I2=0%; 6 RCTs; 11,896 patients; GRADE, moderate confidence), and cardiovascular interventions (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.42-0.89; I2=40%; 4 RCTs; 11,284 patients; GRADE, high confidence). Colchicine did not increase the risk of adverse events, except for gastrointestinal events (RR 1.54; 95% CI 1.11-2.13; I2=72%; 9 RCTs; 12,374 patients; GRADE, very low confidence). Conclusions: Low-dose colchicine in patients with CAD is associated with beneficial effects on prognosis, although an increased risk of gastrointestinal events was confirmed.

| S-EPMC8338916 | biostudies-literature

Colchicine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Project description:Background Inflammation plays a pivotal role in coronary artery disease (CAD). The anti-inflammatory drug colchicine seems to reduce ischemic events in patients with CAD. So far there is equipoise about its safety and impact on mortality. Methods and Results To evaluate the utility of colchicine in patients with acute and chronic CAD, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and conference abstracts were searched from January 1975 to October 2020. Randomized trials assessing colchicine compared with placebo/standard therapy in patients with CAD were included. Data were combined using random-effects models. The reliability of the available data was tested using trial sequential analyses . Of 3108 citations, 13 randomized trials (n=13 125) were included. Colchicine versus placebo/standard therapy in patients with CAD reduced risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.90; P=0.01; I2 41%) and stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; P=0.005; I2 0%). But treatment with colchicine compared with placebo/standard therapy had no influence on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.41; P=0.83; I2 24%; and OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55-1.22; P=0.45; I2 0%, respectively). Colchicine increased the risk for gastrointestinal side effects (P<0.001). According to trial sequential analyses, there is only sufficient evidence for a myocardial infarction risk reduction with colchicine. Conclusions Among patients with CAD, colchicine reduces the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, but has a higher rate of gastrointestinal upset with no influence on all-cause mortality.

| S-EPMC8475038 | biostudies-literature

Association Between Colchicine Treatment and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Project description:Background: The authors examined the association between colchicine treatment and clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: They performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with coronary artery disease receiving addon colchicine to standard treatment compared with standard treatment. They used a mixed-effects Poisson regression model with random intervention effects to estimate the pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% CI. Results: Ten RCTs were identified, including 12,819 participants followed up for a median of 6 months. Colchicine was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (IRR 0.69; 95% CI [0.60-0.79]; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome [NNTB] = 28); MI (IRR 0.77; 95% CI [0.64-0.93]; NNTB = 95) and ischaemic stroke (IRR 0.48; 95% CI [0.30-0.76]; NNTB = 155) and with a higher risk of gastrointestinal adverse events (IRR 1.69; 95% CI [1.12-2.54]; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome [NNTH] = 10). Colchicine did not affect all-cause death (IRR 1.09; 95% CI [0.85-1.40]), or cardiovascular death (IRR 0.75; 95% CI [0.51-1.12]), while it was associated with a higher risk of non-cardiovascular death (IRR 1.45; 95% CI [1.04-2.02]; NNTH = 396). Conclusion: The meta-analysis showed that the relative and absolute beneficial treatment effects of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes outweigh the potential harm for non-cardiovascular mortality. Registration: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021248874.

| S-EPMC8576482 | biostudies-literature

Colchicine for Coronary Artery Disease: A Review

Project description:Coronary artery disease is a serious threat to human health. More and more evidences indicate chronic inflammatory plays a key role in the development of this disease. Inflammation markers are gradually used in the diagnosis and treatment. Although the treatment of coronary heart disease with colchicine is still controversial, more and more studies showed that patients can benefit from this medicine. In this review, we discuss and summarize colchicine on essential pharmacology, anti-inflammatory mechanism of action, and the most important and recent clinical studies. According to these literatures, colchicine possibly will possibly become a new valuable and cheap medicine for the treatment of coronary artery disease.

| S-EPMC9246049 | biostudies-literature

Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease: An updated meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundHeart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Although there are clear indications for revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes, there is debate regarding the benefits of revascularization in stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the role of revascularization compared to conservative medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.HypothesisThere is no significant difference in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality between invasive and medical arms.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search from January 2000 to June 2020. Our literature search yielded seven randomized controlled trials. We analyzed a total of 12 013 patients (6109 in revascularization arm and 5904 in conservative medical therapy arm). Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction [MI], or stroke), cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Additional subgroup analysis for all-cause mortality was performed comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent versus conservative therapy; and PCI with drug eluting stent versus conservative therapy.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in primary outcome of all-cause mortality between either arm (odds ratio [OR] = 0.95; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.83 to 1.08; p = .84). There were statistically significant lower rates of MACE (death, MI or stroke) in the revascularization arm when compared to conservative arm.ConclusionsOur analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

| S-EPMC8119834 | biostudies-literature

Transcriptome Analysis in Patients with Progressive Coronary Artery Disease

Project description:The identification of classic risk factors for coronary artery disease unveiled pathophysiologic mechanisms of atherosclerosis. Among them, inflammation as a systemic process measurable in peripheral blood plays a central role in plaque progression. However, other mechanisms of plaque progression remain to be fully understood. Therefore, this study sought to further investigate systemic correlates of plaque progression by global gene expression in peripheral blood. Microrarray gene expression analysis revealed 93 genes differentially expressed between the groups, of which 23 genes have no known function. Among the remaining 70 genes, 10 (14%) were identified to be associated with progenitor and pluripotent cells whereas only 3 genes (4%) had been associated with atherosclerosis. A risk prediction gene signature was developed by a multivariable statistical approach model integrating comprehensive laboratory and clinical patient data. This signature identified plaque progression with 81% sensitivity and 80% specificity (AUC: 0.86) for new patients, as estimated by resampling techniques. Array results were validated by qPCR for the genes ankyrin-2 (ANK2) and glutathione S-transferase theta 1 (GSTT1). In conclusion, patients with pogressive coronary artery disease despite good risk factor control exhibit particular gene expression patterns in peripheral blood. Understanding the functional implications of the observed changes might help to design new approaches to control atherosclerosis progression. From a large database of 45,727 coronary angiograms, peripheral blood was drawn from two patient groups with good risk factor control, but different clinical evolution: First, 16 patients with significant lesion progression leading to repeated coronary interventions and second, 16 patients with angiographically documented stable courses.

2012-11-30 | E-GEOD-34822 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Transcriptome Analysis in Patients with Progressive Coronary Artery Disease

2012-11-30 | GSE34822 | GEO

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.MethodBy October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).ResultA total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07-5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62-6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64-4.92, p < 0.001).ConclusionOur results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.

| S-EPMC9175312 | biostudies-literature

Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:ObjectiveCoronary artery disease (CAD) has been one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) is a novel and non-invasive therapy for CAD. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of CSWT on CAD.Methods and resultsWe performed a comprehensive search of electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Wanfang Data in October 2021. The results were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical heterogeneity scores were assessed with the standard Cochran's Q test and the I 2 statistic. A total of 8 randomized trials and 2 prospective cohort studies, together involving 643 patients (n = 336 CSWT and n = 307 control), were included in our study. Eight studies with 371 patients showed significantly improved rest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with CSWT as compared to that of the control group (WMD 3.88, 95% CI 1.53-6.23, p = 0.001, I 2 = 51.2%). Seven studies with 312 patients reported left ventricular internal diameter in diastole (LVIDd) were markedly decreased in the CSWT group compared to the control group (WMD -1.81, 95% CI -3.23 to -0.39, p = 0.012, I 2 = 20.3%). The summed stress score significantly favored the CSWT group (WMD -3.76, 95% CI -6.15 to -1.37, p = 0.002, I 2 = 56.8%), but there was no significant difference for the summed rest score. Our data were acquired from studies without a perceived high risk of bias, so plausible bias is unlikely to seriously affect the main findings of the current study.ConclusionBased on data from our present meta-analysis, CSWT was shown to moderately improve myocardial perfusion and cardiac function among patients with CAD, which would provide the clinicians with a meaningful and valuable option.Systematic review registrationThe meta-analysis was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (https://osf.io/r2xf9).

| S-EPMC9358011 | biostudies-literature

LncRNA expression profiling for 6 human monocytes samples from Coronary Artery Disease patients and non Coronary Artery Disease patients

Project description:The human LncRNA microarray analysis of the 6 monocytes samples from Coronary Artery Disease patients and non Coronary Artery Disease 3 Coronary Artery Disease patients and 3 non-Coronary Artery Disease donors

2015-06-05 | E-GEOD-69587 | biostudies-arrayexpress

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data