MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pooled Safety Analysis of Evolocumab in Over 6000 Patients From Double-Blind and Open-Label Extension Studies

2017· review· en· W2594441236 on OpenAlexaff
Peter P. Tóth, Olivier Descamps, Jacques Genest, Naveed Sattar, David Preiss, Ricardo Dent, C. Stephen Djedjos, Yuna Wu, Michelle Geller, Magdalena Uhart, Ransi Somaratne, Scott M. Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersAmgen
KeywordsMedicineEvolocumabOpen labelExtension (predicate logic)Double blindClinical trialInternal medicinePlaceboAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9), markedly reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol across diverse patient populations. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of evolocumab in a pooled safety analysis from phase 2 or 3 randomized and placebo or comparator-controlled trials (integrated parent trials) and the first year of open-label extension (OLE) trials that included a standard-of-care control group. METHODS: This analysis included adverse event (AE) data from 6026 patients in 12 phase 2 and 3 parent trials, with a median exposure of 2.8 months, and, of those patients, from 4465 patients who continued with a median follow-up of 11.1 months in 2 OLE trials. AEs were analyzed separately for the parent and OLE trials. Overall AE rates, serious AEs, laboratory assessments, and AEs of interest were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall AE rates were similar between evolocumab and control in the parent trials (51.1% versus 49.6%) and in year 1 of OLE trials (70.0% versus 66.0%), as were those for serious AEs. Elevations of serum transaminases, bilirubin, and creatine kinase were infrequent and similar between groups. Muscle-related AEs were similar between evolocumab and control. Neurocognitive AEs were infrequent and balanced during the double-blind parent studies (5 events [0.1%], evolocumab groups versus 6 events [0.3%], control groups). In the OLE trials, 27 patients (0.9%) in the evolocumab groups and 5 patients (0.3%) in the control groups reported neurocognitive AEs. No neutralizing antievolocumab antibodies were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this integrated safety analysis of 6026 patients pooled across phase 2/3 trials and 4465 patients who continued in OLE trials for 1 year supports a favorable benefit-risk profile for evolocumab.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.233
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207