We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of colchicine treatment on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2023.

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of colchicine treatment in patients with COVID-19 as compared with placebo or standard of care were included. There were no language restrictions. Studies that used colchicine prophylactically were excluded.

We extracted all information relating to the study characteristics, such as author names, location, study population, details of intervention and comparator groups, and our outcomes of interest. We conducted our meta-analysis by using RevMan V.5.4 with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference as the effect measures.

We included 23 RCTs (28 249 participants) in this systematic review. Colchicine did not decrease the risk of mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=0%; 20 RCTs, 25 824 participants), with the results being consistent among both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. There were no significant differences between the colchicine and control groups in other relevant clinical outcomes, including the incidence of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; p=0.22; I²=40%; 8 RCTs, 13 262 participants), intensive care unit admission (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.22; p=0.27; I²=0%; 6 RCTs, 961 participants) and hospital admission (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16; p=0.19; I²=70%; 3 RCTs, 8572 participants).

The results of this meta-analysis do not support the use of colchicine as a treatment for reducing the risk of mortality or improving other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. However, RCTs investigating early treatment with colchicine (within 5 days of symptom onset or in patients with early-stage disease) are needed to fully elucidate the potential benefits of colchicine in this patient population.

CRD42022369850.

To investigate the challenges and opportunities for implementing smoke-free areas (SFAs) within eight area categories using the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as a framework for analysis.

This study used qualitative methods (in-depth interviews and document reviews). All transcripts from the interviews and formal documents were coded using NVivo V.11 software and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis.

Banda Aceh, Indonesia.

Seventy-three participants were interviewed, stratified by ages (18–59 years): policymakers (n=4), SFA implementers (n=33), SFA’s non-compliance prosecutors (n=2), SFA observers (n=4), communities/respected figures (n=30); and 10 documents were reviewed.

Barriers to the effective implementation of SFAs were identified: conflict of interests of Banda Aceh authorities in implementing SFA policies; inadequate monitoring, evaluation and implementation of SFAs among involved actors; inadequate public communication of SFAs to communities; and misunderstanding of ‘enclosed areas’ as SFAs. However, some important opportunities were identified: the Ministry of Education promotes SFA at schools; and smoking prohibition as part of sharia and other religions’ recommendations.

This research is the first study to examine SFAs to understand the challenges and opportunities for improving SFA policy implementation by interviewing various key respondents in Banda Aceh (religious leaders and respected figures). These key stakeholders’ roles are crucial to enhance the implementation of SFA policies in Banda Aceh (currently suboptimal) and other populous Muslim areas in Indonesia or other countries because smoking contradicts Islamic teachings and other religions’ tenets. Further, the findings propose policymakers and involved agencies strengthen public communication, execution, monitoring and evaluation, and enforcement of SFA policies in Aceh. Finally, the application of methods and results from this study to other local areas in Indonesia or other developing nations is necessary to facilitate further understanding more about the applicability, advantages and limitations of this study.