Search

Objective: To evaluate whether the addition of colchicine to standard of care (SOC) results in better outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Design: This interventional, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study, evaluated colchicine 1.5 mg/day added to SOC in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (COLVID-19 trial) and 227 patients were recruited. The primary outcome was the rate of critical disease in 30 days defined as need of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU), or death., Results: 152 non-anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated patients (colchicine vs controls: 77vs75, mean age 69.1±13.1 vs 67.9±15 years, 39% vs 33.3% females, respectively) were analyzed. There was no difference in co-primary end-points between patients treated with colchicine compared to controls (mechanical ventilation 5.2% vs 4%, ICU 1.3% vs 5.3%, death 9.1% vs 6.7%, overall 11 (14.3%) vs 10 (13.3%) patients, P=ns, respectively). Mean time to discharge was similar (colchicine vs controls 14.1±10.4 vs 14.7±8.1 days). Older age (>60 years, P=0.025), P/F<275 mmHg (P=0.005), AST>40 U/L (P<0.001), pre-existent heart (P=0.02), lung (P=0.003), upper-gastrointestinal (P=0.014), lower-gastrointestinal diseases (P=0.009) and cancer (P=0.008) were predictive of achieving the primary outcome. Diarrhoea (9.1% vs 0%, p=0.0031) and increased levels of AST at 6 days (76.9±91.8 vs 33.5±20.7 U/l, P=0.016) were more frequent in the colchicine group., Conclusion: Colchicine did not reduce the rate and the time to the critical stage. Colchicine was relatively safe although adverse hepatic effects require caution. We confirm that older (>60 years) patients with comorbidities are characterized by worse outcome., (Copyright © 2022 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the internal and external responsiveness of a computed-aided method (CaM) with a conventional visual reader-based score (CoVR) to measure interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT)., Methods: Forty-five patients were evaluated in this retrospective cohort. HRCTs were collected at baseline and after 1 year. HRCT abnormalities were evaluated according to a CoVR (Warrick's method) and a quantitative CaM. Internal 1-year responsiveness was tested with a standardized mean response (SRM). Analyses of the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROCs) evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods to discriminate between clinically relevant progression and no relevant progression, using expert judgment as the gold standard (external responsiveness)., Results: In one year, lung involvement was stable/improved in 17 of the 45 patients (37.8%) and worsened in 28 patients (62.2%). HRCT scores changed moderately over the follow-up period. Using SFM, CaM was significantly more responsive in detecting changes due to treatment than the CoVR method. Likewise, in the analysis of the ROC curve, CaM scores showed the highest performance (AUC ROC CaM vs. CoVR, 0.951 vs. 0.807; p = 0.0065)., Conclusion: Quantitative analysis of CaM was more responsive than the CoVR method to accurately evaluate and monitor SSc-ILD progression or response to therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)