MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14248: Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid in Patients Who Cannot Tolerate Statins: Pooled Analysis of 4 Phase 3 Clinical Trials

2020· article· en· W3099972977 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrich Laufs, Maciej Banach, Harold Bays, Alberico L. Catapano, P. Barton Duell, Anne C. Goldberg, Antonio M. Gotto, Lawrence A. Leiter, Kausik K. Ray, LeAnne T. Bloedon, Zhan Ye, G.B. John Mancini

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinemyalgiaPlaceboDiscontinuationAdverse effectInternal medicineStatinClinical endpointGastroenterologyClinical trialPhases of clinical researchDyslipidemiaDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Some patients cannot tolerate statins mainly because of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Bempedoic acid (BA) is a prodrug activated in the liver and not in skeletal muscle. BA has been shown to significantly lower LDL-C by a mean of ~18% in patients receiving background maximally tolerated statins and a mean of ~25% in patients with statin intolerance. Objective: Determine efficacy and safety of BA in statin-intolerant patients receiving no background statin therapy across 4 phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: Data were pooled from 4 randomized (2:1), placebo-controlled studies evaluating oral BA 180 mg once daily vs placebo for 12 to 52 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint was LDL-C % change from baseline to week 12. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), adverse events of special interest (AESI), and laboratory values. For patients who reported SAMs, additional information around etiology and location were collected. Results: Of 3621 patients, 586 (394 BA; 192 placebo) reported intolerance to multiple statins because of SAMS or other AEs and received no statins during the studies. Mean baseline LDL-C was 148.7 mg/dL. After 12 weeks, BA significantly lowered LDL-C vs placebo (placebo-corrected, -26.5%; P < 0.001). Myalgia was the top reason for drug discontinuation, but was less common in the BA arm (17.7%) vs placebo (43.5%). CK > 5 х ULN was uncommon in both groups. Among AESIs (Table) , muscle disorders were reported by 12.7% (BA) vs 14.1% (placebo). Myalgia was less common with BA (4.6%) vs placebo (7.3%). Muscle spasms (4.1% vs 3.6%) and pain in extremity (3.3% vs 2.1%) were comparable between treatment groups. Muscular weakness was rare (0.5% BA, 1% placebo). Conclusion: Among the population of patients unable to use statins, BA significantly lowered LDL-C vs placebo without increasing muscle-related TEAEs. BA may be an appropriate lipid-lowering therapy for patients with hyperlipidemia who are statin intolerant.

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.017
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→