Objectives Evidence based medicine (EBM) places systematic reviews and meta-analyses, at the top of the evidential pyramid. Bayesian methods may assist in better understanding uncertainties and improve interpretations and harmonization.

Design A 2022 meta-analysis concluded that colchicine reduced the cardiac risk in secondary prevention. Nevertheless, a large, RCT (CLEAR) continued to randomize acute patients to colchicine or placebo and in 2025 published their findings of no benefit. Bayesian sequential analyses and hierarchical meta-analysis can inform the decision to complete this trial and augment the nuances surrounding its interpretation.

Setting RCTs of coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with an acute coronary syndrome admission undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Interventions Randomization to colchicine or placebo.

Main outcomes The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven coronary revascularization.

Results A published 2022 meta-analysis suggested a statistical MACE decrease with colchicine (RR 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 0.86]), but a Bayesian reanalysis showed a 95% credible interval (95% CrI 0.26, 1.70) for the next study, justifying continuing the CLEAR tiral. CLEAR results were eventually interpreted as “negative” (HR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.16). Bayesian sequential re-analyses using a vague prior (i..e. result dominated by CLEAR), an all-inclusive prior (based on the previous meta-analysis), and a focused prior (considering only the largest and most similar previous RCT) showed 58%, 100% and 92% probabilities respectively of a MACE decrease with colchicine. The probabilities of clinically meaningful decreased, based on > absolute 15% MACE reduction, were more modest, between 2% - 41%.

Conclusions Bayesian analyses offer advantages in clinical trial design and interpretation. The worked example strongly suggests some benefit for colchicine in secondary cardiovascular prevention, but it is unlikely to be of clinical importance.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Only published data was used

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes