
Improved Time to Clinical Deterioration in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients on Colchicine
In a small randomized trial, Greek investigators found patients had improved time to clinical deterioration versus a control group.
In a small, randomized clinical trial in Greece, patients taking colchicine had improved time to clinical deterioration versus a control group.
Spyridon Deftereos, MD, PhD, led a team of investigators who wanted to evaluate the effect of colchicine treatment on cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
“In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received colchicine had statistically significantly improved time to clinical deterioration,” the investigators wrote. “There were no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin or C-reactive protein levels.”
The
Patients were given a 1.5mg dose followed by 0.5 mg after 1 hour and administered maintenance (0.5mg) doses twice daily along with standard medical care for up to 3 weeks.
The 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).
The 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). The mean event-free survival time was 18.6 (0.83) days in the control group vs 20.7 (0.31) in the colchicine group (log rank P = .03).
In terms of adverse reactions, both the control and colchicine groups were similar with the exception of bouts of diarrhea. Of the colchicine group, 45.5% of them had this side effect whereas 18% of the control group had it.
The investigators noted the study being open-label as its main limitation, and they cautioned these results should be interpreted cautiously.
“However, the observed difference was based on a narrow margin of clinical significance; therefore, these observations should be considered hypothesis generating,” they concluded.




























































































































































































