Efficacy and safety of colchicine for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials

Varování

Publikace nespadá pod Filozofickou fakultu, ale pod Lékařskou fakultu. Oficiální stránka publikace je na webu muni.cz.

Autoři	SINGH Ambrish MOLINA-GARCIA Pablo HUSSAIN Mohammad Salman PAUL Alok DAS Siddharth Kumar YING-YING Leung HILL Catherine L DANDA Debashish SAMUELS Jonathan ANTONY Benny
Rok publikování	2023
Druh	Článek v odborném periodiku
Časopis / Zdroj	Clinical Rheumatology
Fakulta / Pracoviště MU	Lékařská fakulta
Citace
www	https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10067-022-06402-w
Doi	http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06402-w
Klíčová slova	Calcium pyrophosphate; Chondrocalcinosis; Colchicine; Osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis knee
Popis	Objective Colchicine, an approved treatment for gout, has been trialed in many diseases including osteoarthritis (OA) due to its anti-inflammatory effects. However, its efficacy and safety remain unclear in OA. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of colchicine for the treatment of OA. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through September 2022. Two reviewers independently screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing colchicine with placebo or other active comparators for the treatment of OA (knee, hand, or hip OA), extracted data, and performed Cochrane risk of bias assessments. Result Nine RCTs for the knee OA and one for the hand OA were identified, consisting of 847 patients (429 in colchicine arms, 409 in control arms). The studies were conducted between 2002 and 2021 with follow-up periods ranging from 2 to 12 months, in India, Iran, Turkey, Australia, Singapore, and Iraq. Moderate-quality evidence showed no clinically important pain reduction with colchicine compared to control (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI],?-?0.55, 0.22). Moderate-quality evidence showed no improvement in function with colchicine compared to control in knee OA patients (SMD,?-?0.37; 95% CI,?-?0.87, 0.13). Colchicine showed an acceptable safety profile with AEs/SAEs comparable to control. Conclusion Current evidence does not suggest a benefit of colchicine in reducing pain and improving physical function in the overall cohort of hand/knee OA patients. Future trials should focus on the subgroups of OA patients with local or systemic inflammation and/or mineralization who might benefit from colchicine.
Související projekty:	Postdoc2MUNI