MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inflammatory and Cholesterol Risk in the FOURIER Trial

2018· article· en· W2791615591 on OpenAlexaff
Erin A. Bohula, Robert P. Giugliano, Lawrence A. Leiter, Subodh Verma, Jeong‐Gun Park, Peter Sever, Armando Lira Pineda, Narimon Honarpour, Huei Wang, Sabina A. Murphy, Anthony Keech, Terje R. Pedersen, Marc S. Sabatine

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsEvolocumabMedicineInternal medicinePCSK9Interquartile rangeAlirocumabCardiologyStroke (engine)PopulationUnstable anginaClinical endpointMyocardial infarctionRosuvastatinC-reactive proteinStatinPlaceboGastroenterologyCholesterolApolipoprotein BLipoproteinClinical trialInflammationApolipoprotein A1Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients With Elevated Risk), the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor evolocumab reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and cardiovascular risk. It is not known whether the efficacy of evolocumab is modified by baseline inflammatory risk. We explored the efficacy of evolocumab stratified by baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). We also assessed the importance of inflammatory and residual cholesterol risk across the range of on-treatment LDL-C concentrations. Methods: Patients (n=27 564) with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL on a statin were randomly assigned to evolocumab versus placebo and followed for a median of 2.2 years (1.8–2.5). The effects of evolocumab on the primary end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina or coronary revascularization, and the key secondary end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were compared across strata of baseline hsCRP (<1, 1–3, and >3 mg/dL). Outcomes were also assessed across values for baseline hsCRP and 1-month LDL-C in the entire trial population. Multivariable models adjusted for variables associated with hsCRP and 1-month LDL-C were evaluated. Results: A total of 7981 (29%) patients had a baseline hsCRP<1 mg/L, 11 177 (41%) had a hsCRP 1 to 3 mg/L, and 8337 (30%) had a hsCRP >3 mg/L. Median (interquartile range) baseline hsCRP was 1.8 (0.9–3.6) mg/L and levels were not altered by evolocumab (change at 48 weeks of –0.2 mg/dL [–1.0 to 0.4] in both treatment arms). In the placebo arm, patients in higher baseline hsCRP categories experienced significantly higher 3-year Kaplan-Meier rates of the primary and key secondary end points: 12.0%, 13.7%, and 18.1% for the primary end point ( P trend <0.0001) and 7.4%, 9.1%, and 13.2% for the key secondary end point ( P trend <0.0001) for categories of <1, 1 to 3, and >3 mg/dL, respectively. The relative risk reductions for the primary end point and key secondary end point with evolocumab were consistent across hsCRP strata ( P -interactions>0.15 for both). In contrast, the absolute risk reductions with evolocumab tended to be greater in patients with higher hsCRP: 1.6%, 1.8%, and 2.6% and 0.8%, 2.0%, and 3.0%, respectively, for the primary and key secondary end points across hsCRP strata. In adjusted analyses of the association between LDL-C and hsCRP levels and cardiovascular risk, both LDL-C and hsCRP were independently associated with the primary outcome ( P <0.0001 for each). Conclusions: LDL-C reduction with evolocumab reduces cardiovascular events across hsCRP strata with greater absolute risk reductions in patients with higher-baseline hsCRP. Event rates were lowest in patients with the lowest hsCRP and LDL-C. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01764633.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations273
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207