The lipid-lowering effects of lomitapide are unaffected by adjunctive apheresis in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia – A post-hoc analysis of a Phase 3, single-arm, open-label trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lomitapide (a microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor) is an adjunctive treatment for homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH), a rare genetic condition characterised by elevated low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), and premature, severe, accelerated atherosclerosis. Standard of care for HoFH includes lipid-lowering drugs and lipoprotein apheresis. We conducted a post-hoc analysis using data from a Phase 3 study to assess whether concomitant apheresis affected the lipid-lowering efficacy of lomitapide. METHODS: Existing lipid-lowering therapy, including apheresis, was to remain stable from Week -6 to Week 26. Lomitapide dose was escalated on the basis of individual safety/tolerability from 5 mg to 60 mg a day (maximum). The primary endpoint was mean percent change in LDL-C from baseline to Week 26 (efficacy phase), after which patients remained on lomitapide through Week 78 for safety assessment and further evaluation of efficacy. During this latter period, apheresis could be adjusted. We analysed the impact of apheresis on LDL-C reductions in patients receiving lomitapide. RESULTS: Of the 29 patients that entered the efficacy phase, 18 (62%) were receiving apheresis at baseline. Twenty-three patients (13 receiving apheresis) completed the Week 26 evaluation. Of the six patients who discontinued in the first 26 weeks, five were receiving apheresis. There were no significant differences in percent change from baseline of LDL-C at Week 26 in patients treated (-48%) and not treated (-55%) with apheresis (p = 0.545). Changes in Lp(a) levels were modest and not different between groups (p = 0.436). CONCLUSION: The LDL-C lowering efficacy of lomitapide is unaffected by lipoprotein apheresis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".