MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Randomized Treatment With Icosapent Ethyl and a Mineral Oil Comparator on Interleukin-1β, Interleukin-6, C-Reactive Protein, Oxidized Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, Homocysteine, Lipoprotein(a), and Lipoprotein-Associated Phospholipase A2: A REDUCE-IT Biomarker Substudy

2022· article· en· W4283711740 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Ridker, Nader Rifai, Jean MacFadyen, Robert J. Glynn, Lixia Jiao, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Michael Miller, Eliot A. Brinton, Terry A. Jacobson, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Christie M. Ballantyne, R. Preston Mason, Deepak L. Bhatt

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHomocysteineLipoproteinCholesterolInternal medicineInterleukinEndocrinologyPharmacologyCytokine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl—Intervention Trial) reported a 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events with use of icosapent ethyl compared with pharmaceutical grade mineral oil. The mechanisms underlying this benefit remain uncertain. We explored whether treatment allocation in REDUCE-IT might affect a series of biomarkers in pathways known to associate with atherosclerosis risk. Methods: Serum levels of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, oxidized low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, homocysteine, lipoprotein(a), and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) were measured at baseline, at 12 months, at 24 months, and at the end-of-study visit among REDUCE-IT participants with triglyceride levels ≥ 135 mg/dL and <500 mg/dL who were randomly allocated to treatment with either 4 grams daily of icosapent ethyl or mineral oil used as a comparator. Results: At baseline, median levels of each biomarker were similar in the 2 treatment groups. The levels of biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis increased over time among those allocated to mineral oil treatment; in this group at 12 months, the median percent increases from baseline were 1.5% for homocysteine, 2.2% for lipoprotein(a), 10.9% for oxidized low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 16.2% for interleukin-6, 18.5% for lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, 21.9% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and 28.9% for interleukin-1β (all P values <0.001), with similar changes at 24 months. In the icosapent ethyl group, there were minimal changes in these biomarkers at 12 and 24 months. As such, at study conclusion, between-group treatment differences largely reflected increases in the mineral oil group with median percent differences of 2.4% for lipoprotein(a), 3.0% for homocysteine, 4.2% for oxidized low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 19.8% for interleukin-6, 26.2% for Lp-PLA2, 38.5% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and 48.7% for interleukin-1β (all P values ≤0.007). These data are consistent with previous REDUCE-IT results in which the median percent change for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months was −1.2% among those allocated to icosapent ethyl and 10.9% among those allocated to the mineral oil comparator. Conclusions: Among participants in REDUCE-IT, allocation to icosapent ethyl had minimal effects on a series of biomarkers associated with atherosclerotic disease, whereas levels increased among those allocated to mineral oil. The effect of these findings on interpretation of the overall risk reductions in clinical events observed within REDUCE-IT is uncertain. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations125
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207