MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098138308 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2031049

Evinacumab in Patients with Refractory Hypercholesterolemia

2020· article· en· W3098138308 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. Rosenson, Lesley Burgess, Christoph Ebenbichler, Seth J. Baum, Erik S.G. Stroes, Shazia Ali, Nagwa Khilla, Robert L. Hamlin, Robert Pordy, Yuping Dong, Vladimir Son, Daniel Gaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipid metabolism and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersRegeneron Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineClinical endpointGastroenterologyFamilial hypercholesterolemiaSubcutaneous injectionCholesterolKilogramUrologyClinical trialBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory hypercholesterolemia, who have high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels despite treatment with lipid-lowering therapies at maximum tolerated doses, have an increased risk of atherosclerosis. In such patients, the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and intravenous evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like 3, are not known. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients with or without heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia who had refractory hypercholesterolemia, with a screening LDL cholesterol level of 70 mg per deciliter or higher with atherosclerosis or of 100 mg per deciliter or higher without atherosclerosis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous or intravenous evinacumab or placebo. The primary end point was the percent change from baseline in the LDL cholesterol level at week 16 with evinacumab as compared with placebo. RESULTS: In total, 272 patients were randomly assigned to the following groups: subcutaneous evinacumab at a dose of 450 mg weekly (40 patients), 300 mg weekly (43 patients), or 300 mg every 2 weeks (39 patients) or placebo (41 patients); or intravenous evinacumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram of body weight every 4 weeks (39 patients) or 5 mg per kilogram every 4 weeks (36 patients) or placebo (34 patients). At week 16, the differences in the least-squares mean change from baseline in the LDL cholesterol level between the groups assigned to receive subcutaneous evinacumab at a dose of 450 mg weekly, 300 mg weekly, and 300 mg every 2 weeks and the placebo group were -56.0, -52.9, and -38.5 percentage points, respectively (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The differences between the groups assigned to receive intravenous evinacumab at a dose of 15 mg per kilogram and 5 mg per kilogram and the placebo group were -50.5 percentage points (P<0.001) and -24.2 percentage points, respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events during the treatment period ranged from 3 to 16% across trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory hypercholesterolemia, the use of evinacumab significantly reduced the LDL cholesterol level, by more than 50% at the maximum dose. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03175367.).

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
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

Citations294
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicLipid metabolism and disordersFrench-language works237,207