A Randomized Trial of Colchicine for Acute Pericarditis

the Internal Medicine Department, St. Vincent Hospital, Worcester, MA (D.H.S.)
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 08/2013; 369(16):130831233005005. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208536

ABSTRACT Background
Colchicine is effective for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis. However, conclusive data are lacking regarding the use of colchicine during a first attack of acute pericarditis and in the prevention of recurrent symptoms. Methods
In a multicenter, double-blind trial, eligible adults with acute pericarditis were randomly assigned to receive either colchicine (at a dose of 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 months for patients weighing >70 kg or 0.5 mg once daily for patients weighing 70 kg) or placebo in addition to conventional antiinflammatory therapy with aspirin or ibuprofen. The primary study outcome was incessant or recurrent pericarditis. ResultsA total of 240 patients were enrolled, and 120 were randomly assigned to each of the two study groups. The primary outcome occurred in 20 patients (16.7%) in the colchicine group and 45 patients (37.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk reduction in the colchicine group, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.72; number needed to treat, 4; P<0.001). Colchicine reduced the rate of symptom persistence at 72 hours (19.2% vs. 40.0%, P=0.001), the number of recurrences per patient (0.21 vs. 0.52, P=0.001), and the hospitalization rate (5.0% vs. 14.2%, P=0.02). Colchicine also improved the remission rate at 1 week (85.0% vs. 58.3%, P<0.001). Overall adverse effects and rates of study-drug discontinuation were similar in the two study groups. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusions
In patients with acute pericarditis, colchicine, when added to conventional antiinflammatory therapy, significantly reduced the rate of incessant or recurrent pericarditis. (Funded by former Azienda Sanitaria Locale 3 of Turin [now Azienda Sanitaria Locale 2] and Acarpia; ICAP number, NCT00128453.)


Available from: Stefano Maggiolini, May 29, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Idiopathic (viral) pericarditis is the most common form of pericardial disease in the Western world. Despite the combination of colchicine and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) plus aspirin (ASA), considered first-line therapy, the incidence of recurrent pericarditis is ~20-30%. In addition, secondary recurrence without optimal first-line therapy is ~50%. This is due to the many clinical challenges, such as inappropriate NSAID/ASA duration of therapy, the use of corticosteroid therapy, contraindications or intolerances to therapy, adverse effects, and issues related to adherence. This review describes contemporary pharmacotherapeutic management of idiopathic (viral) pericarditis, with a particular emphasis on the role of colchicine. Emerging therapies and management strategies, such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein-guided therapy and novel immunotherapies, are also reviewed. Ultimately, understanding appropriate treatment will assist the clinician in helping decrease the risk of recurrent, incessant, and refractory pericarditis. © 2015 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.
    Pharmacotherapy 01/2015; 35(1):99-111. DOI:10.1002/phar.1527 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recurrent pericarditis (RP) affects 10% to 50% of patients with acute pericarditis. The use of steroids has been associated with increased recurrence rate of pericarditis, along with known major side effects. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is more frequently used to assess pericardial inflammation and less commonly to guide therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of CMR in the management of RP compared with standard therapy. A total of 507 consecutive patients with RP after the first attack, all of whom were treated with colchicine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line therapy, were retrospectively evaluated. There were 257 patients who were treated with medications and received CMR-guided therapy (group 1) and 250 patients who were treated with medications without CMR (group 2). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics and follow-up periods (17 ± 7.9 vs 16.3 ± 16.2 months, respectively, p = 0.97). CMR was used to assess the presence of pericardial inflammation, and on the basis of the results, the clinician made changes to the steroid dose dictated by the severity of inflammation. There was no significant difference in the incidence of constrictive pericarditis, pericardial window, or pericardiectomy between groups during the follow-up. However, group 2 patients had a larger number of steroid pulse therapies (defined as prednisone 50 mg/day orally for 10 days and tapering to none over 4 weeks), and higher overall total milligrams of steroid administered compared with the CMR group (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001, respectively). Recurrence and pericardiocentesis rates were lower in group 1 (p <0.0001). In conclusion, CMR-guided therapy modulates the management of RP. This approach decreased pericarditis recurrence and exposure to steroids. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The American Journal of Cardiology 12/2014; 115(4). DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.041 · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A 19-year-old male suffered orthopedic fractures, blunt solid organ injury and pneumopericardium after a fall from 40 feet. With the exception of an external fixation device, he was managed non-operatively and discharged to a rehabilitation unit after 8 days. He was readmitted 4 days later with chest pain and clinical evidence of pericardititis that resolved with the initiation of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and colchicine. He returned to the rehabilitation hospital, but was readmitted once again for chest pain and hypotension. Echocardiogram revealed cardiac tamponade that required emergent drainage. He tolerated the procedure well and was discharged home from the hospital to continue treatment for his pericarditis. He is doing well at 3 months of follow-up.
    Journal of Emergencies Trauma and Shock 01/2015; 8(1):49-51. DOI:10.4103/0974-2700.150398