Prevention & lipidsResearch article
Interpreting apparent differences among the major colchicine trials for cardiovascular prevention: A descriptive compatibility analysis
- descriptive compatibility analysis
Authors' conclusion
When outlier status is assigned based only on observed trial results, the trial least readily reconciled with the evidence depends on the assumed true treatment effect. Although differences in design, conduct, population, or inflammatory context may explain the apparently divergent results of the 3 large colchicine trials, CLEAR SYNERGY cannot be designated the outlier on the basis of its neutral result.
Study context
- Population
- Major colchicine trials for cardiovascular prevention (COLCOT, LoDoCo2, CLEAR SYNERGY)
- Comparison
- how the trial that is least readily reconciled with an assumed true treatment effect changes depending on different assumed effects
- Outcome
- Published primary composite outcome from each trial
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
COLCOT
0.77
observed HR
LoDoCo2
0.69
observed HR
CLEAR SYNERGY
0.99
observed HR
Further findings
Cardiovascular death (exploratory)
- Relatively similar across the 3 trials (hazard ratios (HRs))
- 0.84, 0.80, and 1.03
- exploratory
Myocardial infarction (exploratory)
- Broadly comparable in COLCOT and CLEAR SYNERGY but more favourable in LoDoCo2 (HRs)
- 0.91, 0.88, and 0.70
- exploratory
Stroke (exploratory)
- Divergent across all 3 trials (HRs)
- 0.26, 0.66, and 1.15
- exploratory
Original publication
Interpreting apparent differences among the major colchicine trials for cardiovascular prevention: A descriptive compatibility analysis. Am Heart J. Published 11 July 2026. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2026.107539
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it