MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of inclisiran in patients with established cerebrovascular disease: pooled, post hoc analysis of the ORION-9, ORION-10 and ORION-11, phase 3 randomised clinical trials

2021· article· en· W4312745174 on OpenAlexaff
Wolfgang Köenig, Kausik K. Ray, D G Kallend, Ulf Landmesser, L. A. Leiter, Gregory G. Schwartz, R. Scott Wright, Lorena Garcia Conde, M Jaros, Frederick J. Raal

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-hoc analysisStroke (engine)Internal medicinePlaceboPCSK9StatinCardiologySurgeryCholesterolPathologyLipoprotein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with hyperlipidaemia and established cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) are at an increased risk of future strokes or other cardiovascular events.[1] In ischaemic stroke survivors, statins and inhibitors of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) reduce recurrent cardiovascular events including stroke.[2–4] With guidelines increasingly advocating lower LDL-C goals, add-on lipid lowering therapies to statins may be needed. Inclisiran, a first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting PCSK9 messenger RNA, when added to maximally tolerated statin therapy, may provide further LDL-C lowering with a convenient, infrequent dosing schedule in pts with established CeVD. Purpose To assess efficacy and safety of inclisiran in pts with established CeVD. Methods Pts with HeFH, ASCVD or its risk equivalents from ORION-9 (NCT03397121]), ORION-10 (NCT03399370), and ORION-11 (NCT03400800) were randomised 1:1 to receive inclisiran sodium 300 mg (equivalent to 284 mg inclisiran) or placebo (pbo) at Days 1, 90 and 6-monthly thereafter to Day 540. This post hoc analysis included pts with established CeVD (ischaemic stroke, and/or carotid artery stenosis by angiography or ultrasound >70%, and/or prior percutaneous or surgical carotid artery revascularisation). Percentage LDL-C change from baseline to Day 510 and corresponding time-averaged percentage change from baseline after Day 90 to Day 540 were evaluated. Safety was assessed over 540 days. Results Of 202 pts with established CeVD, 110 and 92 received inclisiran and pbo, respectively. At baseline, 90.0% (99/110) of pts in inclisiran and 84.8% (78/92) in pbo group reported prior ischaemic stroke(s); others had carotid artery stenosis and/or carotid revascularisation (Table 1). Mean (95% CI) pbo-corrected LDL-C percentage change from baseline at Day 510 with inclisiran was −55.2% (−64.5 to −45.9); corresponding time-averaged change from baseline after Day 90 to Day 540 was −55.2% (−62.4 to −47.9) (P<0.0001 for each; Table 2). Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) were more frequent in the inclisiran vs pbo group but were consistent with the overall pooled (N=3655) population of the combined trials. Clinically relevant TEAEs at the injection site were reported more frequently with inclisiran (3.6% [4/110]) vs pbo (0% [0/92]), but none were severe. Percentage of pts with clinically relevant laboratory measurements was low and similar between treatment groups and consistent with the overall pooled population (Table 2). Conclusions In pts with established CeVD, a twice-yearly dosing with inclisiran (after the initial and 3-month doses) provided sustained additional LDL-C reduction of ∼55%. A modest excess of mild/moderate TEAEs at the injection site were reported with inclisiran. The cardiovascular benefits of inclisiran among patients with established CeVD are being evaluated in ongoing trials. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207