Efficacy and safety of colchicine for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis of intervention trials
Metadata
Show full item recordEditorial
Springer
Materia
Calcium pyrophosphate Chondrocalcinosis Colchicine Osteoarthritis Osteoarthritis knee
Date
2022-10-12Referencia bibliográfica
Singh, A... [et al.]. Efficacy and safety of colchicine for the treatment of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials. Clin Rheumatol (2022). [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06402-w]
Sponsorship
International Graduate Research Scholarship, University of Tasmania; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia 2017-20; Operational Programme Research, Development, and Education CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/18_053/0016952 CAULAbstract
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 metaanalysis
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.