Jean-Claude Tardif

OBJECTIVE The cardiovascular benefits of low-dose colchicine have been demonstrated in patients with coronary disease. Its effects were evaluated in this prespecified analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS COLCOT was a randomized, double-blinded trial of colchicine, 0.5 mg daily, versus placebo initiated within 30 days after a myocardial infarction. RESULTS There were 959 patients with T2D enrolled and monitored for a median of 22.6 months. A primary end point event occurred in 8.7% of patients in the colchicine group and in 13.1% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% CI 0.44–0.96; P = 0.03). Nausea was reported in 2.7% and 0.8% in the study groups (P = 0.03), and pneumonia occurred in 2.4% and 0.4% (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with T2D and a recent myocardial infarction, colchicine, 0.5 mg daily, leads to a large reduction of cardiovascular events. These results support the conduct of the COLCOT-T2D trial in primary prevention.

Aims Guidelines have lowered blood pressure (BP) targets to <130/80 mmHg. We examined the benefit of intensive control for each BP component, vs. the burden of other modifiable risk factors, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Methods and results The CLARIFY registry (ISRCTN43070564) enrolled 32 703 patients with CCS, from 2009 to 2010, with a 5-year follow-up. Patients with either BP component below European guideline safety boundaries (120/70 mmHg) were excluded, leaving 19 167 patients (mean age: 63.8 ± 10.1 years, 78% men) in the present analysis. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model showed a gradual increase in cardiovascular risk (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) when the number of uncontrolled risk factors (active smoking, no physical activity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL, and diabetes with glycated haemoglobin ≥7%) increased [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17–1.52, 1.65 (1.40–1.94), and 2.47 (1.90–3.21) for 1, 2, and 3 or 4 uncontrolled risk factors, respectively, vs. 0], without significant interaction with BP. Although uncontrolled systolic (≥140 mmHg) and diastolic (≥90 mmHg) BP were both associated with higher risk than standard BP, standard BP was associated with higher risk than optimal control for only the diastolic component (adjusted HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.94–1.25 for systolic BP 130–139 vs. 120–129 mmHg and 1.43; 95% CI: 1.27–1.62 for diastolic BP 80–89 vs. 70–79 mmHg). Conclusions Our results suggest that the optimal BP target in CCS may be ≤139/79 mmHg and that optimizing the burden of other risk factors should be prioritized over the further reduction of systolic BP.