MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890723626 · doi:10.1111/dme.13817

Alirocumab safety in people with and without diabetes mellitus: pooled data from 14 <scp>ODYSSEY</scp> trials

2018· article· en· W2890723626 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence A. Leiter, Francisco J. Tinahones, Dean G. Karalis, Maja Bujas‐Bobanovic, Alexia Letierce, Jonas Mandel, Rita Samuel, Peter H. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersRegeneron PharmaceuticalsSanofi
KeywordsAlirocumabMedicineDiabetes mellitusHazard ratioInternal medicineAdverse effectPCSK9EndocrinologyCholesterolConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim To evaluate the safety of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 ( PCSK 9) inhibitor alirocumab according to diabetes mellitus status. Methods Safety data from 14 trials (8–104‐week durations) were analysed by treatment (alirocumab or placebo/ezetimibe control) and diabetes status (yes/no, defined by medical history). Adverse event data were assessed using descriptive statistics and Cox models. Results Of the 5234 trial participants, 1554 (29.7%) had diabetes. Overall, treatment‐emergent adverse events were similar in the alirocumab and control groups, except for more frequent local injection site reactions with alirocumab. Fewer people with diabetes experienced local injection site reactions [alirocumab, 3.5%, control, 2.9%; hazard ratio 1.24 (95% CI 0.68–2.25)] than those without diabetes [alirocumab, 7.5%; control, 4.9%; hazard ratio 1.51 (95% CI 1.13–2.01)]. Those with diabetes reported a greater number of serious adverse events (alirocumab, 19.4%; control, 19.7%) than those without diabetes (alirocumab, 14.5%; control, 13.5%). In people with diabetes, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 2.7% of alirocumab‐treated people [control, 3.3%; hazard ratio 0.74 (95% CI 0.41–1.35)]; in those without diabetes, 1.8% of alirocumab‐treated people had major adverse cardiac events [control, 1.7%; hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.56–1.62)]. Overall, no increase in HbA 1c or fasting plasma glucose vs control treatment groups was observed, regardless of diabetes status. Conclusion This pooled analysis across 14 trials demonstrated similar safety for alirocumab vs control treatment, irrespective of diabetes status, except for more frequent local injection site reactions with alirocumab. People with diabetes reported fewer local injection site reactions than those without diabetes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetic MedicineSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207