Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid added to ezetimibe in statin-intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia: A randomized, placebo-controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with hyperlipidemia who are unable to tolerate optimal statin therapy are at increased cardiovascular risk due to ongoing elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The objective of CLEAR Tranquility (NCT03001076) was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid when added to background lipid-modifying therapy in patients with a history of statin intolerance who require additional LDL-C lowering. METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients with a history of statin intolerance and an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL while on stable lipid-modifying therapy. After a 4-week ezetimibe 10 mg/day run-in period, patients were randomized 2:1 to treatment with bempedoic acid 180 mg or placebo once daily added to ezetimibe 10 mg/day for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C. RESULTS: The study population comprised 269 patients (181 bempedoic acid, 88 placebo). Bempedoic acid added to background lipid-modifying therapy that included ezetimibe reduced LDL-C by 28.5% more than placebo (p < 0.001; -23.5% bempedoic acid, +5.0% placebo). Significant reductions in secondary endpoints, including non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-23.6%), total cholesterol (-18.0%), apolipoprotein B (-19.3%), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (-31.0%), were observed with bempedoic acid vs. placebo (p < 0.001). Bempedoic acid was well tolerated; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, muscle-related adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in the bempedoic acid and placebo treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bempedoic acid may provide an oral therapeutic option complementary to ezetimibe in statin intolerant patients who require additional LDL-C lowering.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".