MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3106996279 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3341

REDUCE-IT: outcomes by baseline statin type

2020· article· en· W3106996279 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak L. Bhatt, Michael Miller, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Eliot A. Brinton, Terry A. Jacobson, Steven Ketchum, Ralph T. Doyle, Rebecca A. Juliano, L Jiao, Craig Granowitz, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Christie M. Ballantyne

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatinRosuvastatinSimvastatinPravastatinAtorvastatinInternal medicineClinical endpointPlaceboMyocardial infarctionHazard ratioCardiologyPharmacologyRandomized controlled trialCholesterolConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) randomized 8,179 statin-treated patients with elevated triglycerides and increased cardiovascular (CV) risk to either icosapent ethyl (IPE), a pure, stable prescription form of eicosapentaenoic acid, 4g/day or placebo. IPE significantly reduced time to first occurrence of the primary composite endpoint of major adverse CV events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina) (HR 0.75, CI 0.68–0.83) and key secondary endpoint events (composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) (HR 0.74, CI 0.65–0.83) versus placebo (all p<0.0001). A modest reduction in placebo-corrected LDL-C was observed (−6.6%; p<0.0001). The mechanisms for the CV benefit of icosapent ethyl are not fully understood. Purpose Explore the impact of statin type and lipophilic/lipophobic category on outcomes, and on LDL-C, to further consider the possible relevance of LDL-C pathways to the observed CV benefit of icosapent ethyl. Methods Primary and key secondary endpoint analyses and LDL-C changes from baseline were explored by individual statin type (atorvastatin, simvastatin, rosuvastatin, or pravastatin) at baseline, and then by categorizing these statins into lipophilic (i.e., hydrophobic: atorvastatin, simvastatin) and lipophobic (i.e., hydrophilic: rosuvastatin, pravastatin) statin groups; 96.1% of patients fell within these individual statin groups. Results CV outcomes were similar across statin types (interaction p=0.61) and lipophilic/lipophobic categories (interaction p=0.51) (Figure). Statin type and category had a similar lack of meaningful impact on the modest placebo-corrected median LDL-C changes from baseline to one year, which ranged from −5.8 to −8.4% (all p≤0.0003). Conclusion No meaningful treatment differences in the primary or key secondary endpoints across statin type or lipophilic/lipophobic category were observed. A similar lack of treatment difference was observed in LDL-C changes from baseline to one year. Therefore, the LDL-C changes and CV risk reduction in REDUCE-IT appear independent of the type of concomitant statin therapy. These data provide clinicians with additional insight regarding concomitant statin therapy considerations when prescribing icosapent ethyl and suggest there are important mechanisms of action for the substantial CV risk reduction observed with icosapent ethyl that are distinct from the LDL receptor pathway. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): The study was funded by Amarin Pharma, Inc.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→