Dimitrios Alexopoulos

Importance: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection has evolved into a global pandemic. Low-dose colchicine combines anti-inflammatory action with a favorable safety profile. Objective: To evaluate the effect of treatment with colchicine on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial (the Greek Study in the Effects of Colchicine in COVID-19 Complications Prevention), 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized in a 1:1 allocation from April 3 to April 27, 2020, to either standard medical treatment or colchicine with standard medical treatment. The study took place in 16 tertiary hospitals in Greece. Intervention: Colchicine administration (1.5-mg loading dose followed by 0.5 mg after 60 min and maintenance doses of 0.5 mg twice daily) with standard medical treatment for as long as 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were (1) maximum high-sensitivity cardiac troponin level; (2) time for C-reactive protein to reach more than 3 times the upper reference limit; and (3) time to deterioration by 2 points on a 7-grade clinical status scale, ranging from able to resume normal activities to death. Secondary end points were (1) the percentage of participants requiring mechanical ventilation, (2) all-cause mortality, and (3) number, type, severity, and seriousness of adverse events. The primary efficacy analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 105 patients were evaluated (61 [58.1%] men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [54-76] years) with 50 (47.6%) randomized to the control group and 55 (52.4%) to the colchicine group. Median (interquartile range) peak high-sensitivity cardiac troponin values were 0.0112 (0.0043-0.0093) ng/mL in the control group and 0.008 (0.004-0.0135) ng/mL in the colchicine group (P = .34). Median (interquartile range) maximum C-reactive protein levels were 4.5 (1.4-8.9) mg/dL vs 3.1 (0.8-9.8) mg/dL (P = .73), respectively. The clinical primary end point rate was 14.0% in the control group (7 of 50 patients) and 1.8% in the colchicine group (1 of 55 patients) (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). Mean (SD) event-free survival time was 18.6 (0.83) days the in the control group vs 20.7 (0.31) in the colchicine group (log rank P = .03). Adverse events were similar in the 2 groups, except for diarrhea, which was more frequent with colchicine group than the control group (25 patients [45.5%] vs 9 patients [18.0%]; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received colchicine had statistically significantly improved time to clinical deterioration. There were no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin or C-reactive protein levels. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04326790.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor and prasugrel provide stronger platelet inhibition compared with clopidogrel. Direct pharmacodynamic comparison between them has not yet been reported in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective, single-center, single-blind study, 55 out of 117 (47%) screened consecutive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to either ticagrelor 180 mg loading followed by 90 mg bid, or prasugrel 60 mg loading followed by 10 mg od for 5 days. Platelet reactivity (PR) was assessed with the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay and the Multiplate Analyzer at 0, 1, 2, 6, 24 hours, and 5 days postrandomization. The primary end point, PR with VerifyNow at hour 1, did not differ significantly between patients randomized to ticagrelor versus prasugrel (257.3 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU], 95% CI 230.8-283.8 versus 231.3 PRU, 95% CI 205.3-257.4; P=0.2). PR did not differ at 2, 6, and 24 hours, although at day 5 it was lower with ticagrelor than prasugrel (25.6 PRU, 95% CI 12.3-38.9 versus 50.3 PRU, 95% CI 36.4-64.1; P=0.01). At hour 2, high on-treatment PR rates (cutoff 208 PRU) were 46.2% and 34.6% for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively, decreased significantly thereafter, whereas did not differ significantly between the 2 agents at all the time points of the study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, both ticagrelor and prasugrel exhibit an initial delay in the onset of their antiplatelet action. Ticagrelor did not appear superior to prasugrel in reducing PR during the first 24 hours of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01463163.