Effect of Bempedoic Acid vs Placebo Added to Maximally Tolerated Statins on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Additional treatment options are needed for patients who do not achieve sufficient reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level with available lipid-lowering therapies. Objective: To assess the efficacy of bempedoic acid vs placebo in patients at high cardiovascular risk receiving maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at 91 clinical sites in North America and Europe from November 2016 to September 2018, with a final date of follow-up of September 22, 2018. A total of 779 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, or both met randomization criteria, which included LDL-C level 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) or greater while receiving maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to treatment with bempedoic acid (180 mg) (n = 522) or placebo (n = 257) once daily for 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was percent change from baseline in LDL-C level at week 12. Secondary measures included changes in levels of lipids, lipoproteins, and biomarkers. Results: Among 779 randomized patients (mean age, 64.3 years; 283 women [36.3%]), 740 (95.0%) completed the trial. At baseline, mean LDL-C level was 120.4 (SD, 37.9) mg/dL. Bempedoic acid lowered LDL-C levels significantly more than placebo at week 12 (-15.1% vs 2.4%, respectively; difference, -17.4% [95% CI, -21.0% to -13.9%]; P < .001). Significant reductions with bempedoic acid vs placebo were observed at week 12 for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-10.8% vs 2.3%; difference, -13.0% [95% CI, -16.3% to -9.8%]; P < .001), total cholesterol (-9.9% vs 1.3%; difference, -11.2% [95% CI, -13.6% to -8.8%]; P < .001), apolipoprotein B (-9.3% vs 3.7%; difference, -13.0% [95% CI, -16.1% to -9.9%]; P < .001), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (median, -18.7% vs -9.4%; difference, -8.7% [asymptotic confidence limits, -17.2% to -0.4%]; P = .04). Common adverse events included nasopharyngitis (5.2% vs 5.1% with bempedoic acid and placebo, respectively), urinary tract infection (5.0% vs 1.9%), and hyperuricemia (4.2% vs 1.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease receiving maximally tolerated statins, the addition of bempedoic acid compared with placebo resulted in a significant lowering of LDL-C level over 12 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the durability and clinical effect as well as long-term safety. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02991118.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".