MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 14270: The Effect of Evinacumab on Apheresis Eligibility in Patients With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2020· article· en· W3101659935 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick J. Raal, Robert S. Rosenson, Laurens F. Reeskamp, G. Kees Hovingh, John J.P. Kastelein, Paolo Rubba, Shazia Ali, Poulabi Banerjee, Kuo‐Chen Chan, Nagwa Khilla, Jennifer McGinniss, Robert Pordy, Yi Zhang, Daniel Gaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipid metabolism and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineApheresisFamilial hypercholesterolemiaPlaceboLDL apheresisInternal medicineGastroenterologyClinical trialCholesterolPlateletPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) is a rare genetic lipid disorder characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Evinacumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against angiopoietin-like protein 3, has demonstrated approximately 50% reductions in LDL-C in HoFH patients when added to maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapies. Objective: In this post-hoc analysis, we assessed the effect of evinacumab on the eligibility for apheresis using predefined US and EU apheresis criteria. Methods: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, 24-week phase 3 trial (NCT03399786) that randomized patients 2:1 to evinacumab 15 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks (Q4W; n=43) or placebo (n=22). We assessed the proportion of patients who met per protocol US apheresis criteria (LDL-C ≥300 mg/dL), newer US criteria for FH (LDL-C ≥300 mg/dL or LDL-C ≥160 mg/dL with coronary heart disease or peripheral artery disease) and per protocol EU apheresis criteria (LDL-C >160 mg/dL [primary prevention] or >120 mg/dL [secondary prevention]) at baseline and week 24. Results: Under the newer US criteria (2018), 62.8% (n=27) of evinacumab-treated patients and 54.5% (n=12) placebo-treated patients qualified for apheresis at baseline (Table). Following 24 weeks of treatment, 48.8% of all evinacumab versus 9.1% of all placebo patients no longer qualified for apheresis. Similar results were observed using EU apheresis criteria, where 46.5% of evinacumab-treated patients shifted from qualifying for apheresis at baseline to not qualifying at week 24, compared with 4.5% of placebo-treated patients. The majority of evinacumab (65.1%) and placebo (68.2%) patients did not qualify for per protocol US apheresis at baseline, however a shift of 27.9% and 9.1% was observed, respectively. Conclusions: Evinacumab has the potential to reduce the need for apheresis in patients with HoFH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicLipid metabolism and disordersFrench-language works237,207