Exploration of the regional effects of colchicine in the LoDoCo2 trial
Authors' conclusion
After examining several plausible explanations for the observed differences in the magnitude of treatment effect of colchicine between regions in the LoDoCo2 trial could be due to the differences in duration of follow-up but a substantial portion of the differences remain unexplained.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with chronic coronary disease in Australia and The Netherlandsrandomized 1:1
- Participants
- 5,522 patients
- Comparison
- Colchicine vs placebo, by region
- Primary endpoint
- Explanations for the apparent difference in magnitude of treatment effect of colchicine by region
Methodological detailsexploratory regional analysis, sub-group, landmark and effect modification analyses
- Exploratory regional analysis
- Sub-group, landmark and effect modification analyses
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Regional treatment effect of colchicine, landmark analysis (period when >90% of patients in each region followed)
Colchicine vs PlaceboHazard ratio (95% CI)
Australia
0.58(0.34–0.97)
The Netherlands
0.67(0.47–0.96)
Further findings
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Regional treatment effect of colchicine, prespecified subgroup analysis (original trial)Colchicinevs PlaceboAustralia · prespecified subgroup analysis | 0.51 (0.39–0.67) | |
| Regional treatment effect of colchicine, prespecified subgroup analysis (original trial)Colchicinevs PlaceboThe Netherlands · prespecified subgroup analysis | 0.92 (0.71–1.20) | |
| 0.20.5125Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Original publication
Exploration of the regional effects of colchicine in the LoDoCo2 trial. Am Heart J. Published 21 September 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →