Prognostic factors for colchicine prophylaxis-related adverse events when initiating allopurinol for gout: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Colchicine is commonly used to prevent flares when starting urate-lowering therapy for gout. Patients with gout are frequently concurrently prescribed other medications (such as statins) that may interact with colchicine, increasing the risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to describe potential prognostic factors for adverse events in patients prescribed colchicine when initiating allopurinol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with colchicine (01/04/1997-30/11/2016) were included. Potential prognostic factors were defined, and the likelihood of adverse events, including diarrhoea, nausea or vomiting, myocardial infarction (MI), neuropathy, myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and bone marrow suppression, were estimated. RESULTS: From 01/04/1997-30/11/2016, 13 945 people with gout initiated allopurinol with colchicine prophylaxis (mean age 63.9 (SD 14.7) years, 78.2% male). One quarter (26%, 95% CI 25% to 27%) were prescribed ≥1 potentially interacting medicines, most commonly statins (21%, 95% CI 20% to 22%). Statins were not associated with increased adverse events, although other drugs were associated with some adverse outcomes. Diarrhoea and MI were associated with more comorbidities and more severe CKD. CONCLUSION: People were given colchicine prophylaxis despite commonly having preexisting prescriptions for medications with potential to interact with colchicine. Adverse events were more common in people who had more comorbidities and certain potentially interacting medications. Our findings will provide much-needed information about prognostic factors for colchicine-related adverse events that can inform treatment decisions about prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol.

Safety of colchicine and NSAID prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy for gout: propensity score-matched cohort studies in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of adverse events associated with colchicine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol for gout. METHODS: We conducted two matched retrospective cohort studies in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with (1) colchicine or (2) NSAID prophylaxis were compared with those initiating without prophylaxis, individually matched by age, sex and propensity to receive the relevant prophylaxis. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models investigated associations between colchicine/NSAID and specified adverse events. RESULTS: 13 945 individuals prescribed colchicine were matched to 13 945 with no prophylaxis and 25 980 prescribed NSAID to 25 980 with no prophylaxis. Adverse event incidence rates were <200/10 000 patient-years except diarrhoea (784.4; 95% CI 694.0 to 886.5) and nausea (208.1; 95% CI 165.4 to 261.7) for colchicine and angina for NSAID (466.6; 95% CI 417.2 to 521.8). Diarrhoea (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.83 to 2.69), myocardial infarction (MI) (1.55; 95% CI 1.10, 2.17), neuropathy (4.75; 95% CI 1.20 to 18.76), myalgia (2.64; 95% CI 1.45 to 4.81), bone marrow suppression (3.29; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.58) and any adverse event (1.91, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.20) were more common with colchicine than no prophylaxis, but not nausea/vomiting (1.34; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.85). Angina (1.60; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.86), acute kidney injury (1.56; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.03), MI (1.89; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.48), peptic ulcer disease (1.67; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.44) and any adverse event (1.63; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.85) were more common with NSAID than without. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were more common when allopurinol was initiated with prophylaxis, particularly diarrhoea with colchicine. Other events were uncommon, providing reassurance for patients and clinicians to enable shared decision-making.

Impact of COVID-19 on stroke admissions, treatments, and outcomes at a comprehensive stroke centre in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has changed routine clinical practice worldwide with major impacts on the provision of care and treatment for stroke patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all patients admitted to the Royal Stoke University Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, UK, with a stroke or transient ischaemic attack between March 15th and April 14th, 2020 (COVID). Patient demographics, characteristics of the stroke, treatment details and logistics were compared with patients admitted in the corresponding weeks in the year before (2019). RESULTS: There was a 39.5% (n = 101 vs n = 167) reduction in admissions in the COVID cohort compared with 2019 with more severe strokes (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 7 vs 4, p = 0.02), and fewer strokes with no visible acute pathology (21.8 vs 37.1%, p = 0.01) on computed tomography. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of thrombolysis (10.9 vs 13.2%, p = 0.72) and/or thrombectomy (5.9 vs 4.8%, p = 0.90) and no statistically significant difference in time from stroke onset to arrival at hospital (734 vs 576 min, p = 0.34), door-to-needle time for thrombolysis (54 vs 64 min, p = 0.43) and door-to-thrombectomy time (181 vs 445 min, p = 0.72). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly higher in the COVID year (10.9 vs 8.9%, p = 0.77). None of the 7 stroke patients infected with COVID-19 died. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of stroke admissions fell, and stroke severity increased. There was no statistically significant change in the delivery of thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy and no increase in mortality.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 associated stroke: a UK multicentre case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: We set out to determine which characteristics and outcomes of stroke are associated with COVID-19. METHODS: This case-control study included patients admitted with stroke to 13 hospitals in England and Scotland between 9 March and 5 July 2020. We collected data on 86 strokes (81 ischaemic strokes and 5 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients with evidence of COVID-19 at the time of stroke onset (cases). They were compared with 1384 strokes (1193 ischaemic strokes and 191 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients admitted during the same time period who never had evidence of COVID-19 (controls). In addition, the whole group of stroke admissions, including another 37 patients who appeared to have developed COVID-19 after their stroke, were included in two logistic regression analyses examining which features were independently associated with COVID-19 status and with inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Cases with ischaemic stroke were more likely than ischaemic controls to occur in Asians (18.8% vs 6.7%, p<0.0002), were more likely to involve multiple large vessel occlusions (17.9% vs 8.1%, p<0.03), were more severe (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 8 vs 5, p<0.002), were associated with higher D-dimer levels (p<0.01) and were associated with more severe disability on discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score 4 vs 3, p<0.0001) and inpatient death (19.8% vs 6.9%, p<0.0001). Recurrence of stroke during the patient's admission was rare in cases and controls (2.3% vs 1.0%, NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that COVID-19 may be an important modifier of the onset, characteristics and outcome of acute ischaemic stroke.