👤 Jan H Cornel

There is a need for effective tools to stratify and modify cardiovascular risk associated with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and oxidized phospholipids (OxPL). The objective of this analysis was to explore the modifying effects of low-grade inflammation on Lp(a)- and OxPL-associated risk in a secondary prevention cohort. Levels of Lp(a), OxPL associated with apolipoprotein(a) (OxPL-apo[a]) and apolipoprotein B (OxPL-apoB) were determined in the placebo-arm of the low-dose colchicine 2 trial. Patients were between 35 and 82 years, had established chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), and were clinically stable for at least six months prior to randomization. The outcome was the incidence of the composite endpoint of spontaneous myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization stratified by biomarker levels using a Cox regression model. There was a significant interaction between Lp(a) and IL-6 <3.2 ng/L (median) and IL-6 ≥3.2 ng/L for the composite endpoint (HR 0.90; 95 %CI 0.78-1.03 vs HR 1.18; 95 %CI 1.01-1.39, P In patients with CCS, Lp(a), OxPL-apo(a) and OxPL-apoB associated cardiovascular risk was only pertinent in those with elevated IL-6 but not hsCRP levels. Show less

Inflammatory lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and oxidized phospholipids (OxPLs) on lipoproteins convey residual cardiovascular disease risk. The low-dose colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial showed that colchicine reduced the risk of cardiovascular events occurring on standard therapies in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). We explored the effects of colchicine on Lp(a)- and oxidized lipoprotein-associated risk in a LoDoCo2 biomarker subpopulation. Lipoprotein(a) and OxPLs on apolipoprotein(a) [OxPL-apo(a)] and apolipoprotein B-100 (OxPL-apoB) levels were determined in the biomarker population of the LoDoCo2 trial (n = 1777). The Cox regression analysis was used to compare the risk of the primary endpoint, consisting of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, or ischaemia-driven revascularization by biomarker levels. Interactions between treatment, Lp(a), and OxPL levels were evaluated. Lipoprotein(a), OxPL-apo(a), and OxPL-apoB levels were similar between the colchicine and placebo groups. Consistent risk reduction by colchicine was observed in those with Lp(a) < 125 nmol/L and ≥125 nmol/L and the highest OxPL-apo(a) tertile compared with the lowest (Pinteraction = 0.92 and 0.66). The absolute risk reduction for those with Lp(a) ≥ 125 nmol/L appeared higher compared with those with Lp(a) < 125 nmol/L (4.4% vs. 2.4%). A treatment interaction for colchicine was found in those with the highest OxPL-apoB tertile vs. the lowest (Pinteraction = 0.04). In patients with CCS, colchicine reduces cardiovascular disease risk in those with and without elevated Lp(a) but absolute benefits appeared higher in those with Lp(a) ≥ 125 nmol/L. Patients with higher levels of OxPL-apoB experienced greater benefit of colchicine, suggesting that colchicine may be more effective in subjects with heightened oxidation-driven inflammation. Show less

Guidelines recommend low-dose colchicine for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease, but uncertainty remains concerning its efficacy for stroke, efficacy in key subgroups and about uncommon but serious safety outcomes. In this trial-level meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries form inception to May 16, 2024. We included randomised trials of colchicine for secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, or cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes were serious safety outcomes and mortality. A fixed-effect inverse-variance model was used to generate a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024540320. Six trials involving 14,934 patients with prior stroke or coronary disease were included. In all patients, colchicine compared with placebo or no colchicine reduced the risk for ischaemic stroke by 27% (132 [1.8%] events versus 186 [2.5%] events, RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.90]) and MACE by 27% (505 [6.8%] events versus 693 [9.4%] events, with RR 0.73 [0.65-0.81]). Efficacy was consistent in key subgroups (females versus males, age below versus above 70, with versus without diabetes, statin versus non-statin users). Colchicine was not associated with an increase in serious safety outcomes: hospitalisation for pneumonia (109 [1.5%] versus 106 [1.5%], RR 0.99 [0.76-1.30]), cancer (247 [3.5%] versus 255 [3.6%], RR 0.97 [0.82-1.15]), and gastro-intestinal events (153 [2.1%] versus 135 [1.9%]), RR 1.15 [0.91-1.44]. There was no difference in all-cause death (201 [2.7%] versus 181 [2.4%], RR 1.09 [0.89-1.33]), cardiovascular death (70 [0.9%] versus 80 [1.1%], RR 0.89 [0.65-1.23]), or non-cardiovascular death (131 [1.8%] versus 101 [1.4%], RR 1.26 [0.98-1.64]). In patients with prior stroke or coronary disease, colchicine reduced ischaemic stroke and MACE, with consistent treatment effect in key subgroups, and did not increase serious safety events or death. There was no funding source for this study. Show less