MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 16311: Efficacy and Safety of Inclisiran According to Sex: A Pooled Analysis of the ORION 9, 10 and 11 Trials

2020· article· en· W3101323395 on OpenAlexaff
R Scott S Wright, Kausik K. Ray, Frederick J. Raal, David Kallend, Mark Jaros, Wolfgang Köenig, Lawrence A. Leiter, Ulf E Landmesser, Gregory G. Schwartz, Peter Wijngaard, John J.P. Kastelein

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboInternal medicineClinical endpointSurrogate endpointPooled analysisCardiologyClinical trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite a later onset in life than males, ASCVD is the leading cause of death in females, additionally mortality is higher compared to males. Disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of CVD risk factors may contribute to this difference. Inclisiran is a novel siRNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis and lowers LDL-C. Three Phase III placebo-controlled trials evaluated efficacy and safety of inclisiran in patients with HeFH (ORION-9), ASCVD (ORION-10, -11) and ASCVD risk equivalents (ORION-11). Objective: To assess the impact of sex on the efficacy and safety profile of inclisiran. Methods: Patients from each trial were categorized by sex. The co-primary endpoints were percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to Day 510 and time-adjusted percentage change in LDL-C from baseline after Day 90 up to Day 540. Secondary efficacy and safety parameters were assessed over 18 months. Results: Of a total 3660 patients, 1190 (32.5%) were females and 2470 (67.5%) were males. At baseline, females were less likely to receive statins [high-intensity statins] (90% [70%] vs 93% [76%]), or have ASCVD (73.6% vs 90.3%), were more likely to have ASCVD-risk equivalent (26.4% vs 9.7%) vs males. The efficacy of inclisiran vs placebo in both co-primary endpoints was similar in both sexes. Females had higher LDL-C at baseline (122.9 mg/dL vs 105.8 mg/dL) and (secondary endpoints) placebo-corrected mean absolute reduction in LDL-C at Day 510 (62.6 vs 54.0 mg/dL, P <0.05) and time-adjusted reduction from Days 90 to 540 (59.0 vs 51.5 mg/dL, P <0.05) with inclisiran were greater in females than males. Most AEs were similar between inclisiran vs placebo for both sexes except for injection-site AEs that were higher in the inclisiran arm than placebo (females 9.4% vs 0.2%, males 2.8% vs 0.9%; Table). Conclusions: The efficacy and safety profile of inclisiran was generally similar in both sexes, except for more inclisiran injection-site AEs (mainly mild) vs placebo, which were more frequent in females.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.014
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→