Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic Acid to Prevent Cardiovascular Events in Individuals at Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Control Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of bempedoic acid in preventing cardiovascular events among high-risk patients. We conducted a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent researchers carried out online database searches on Medline, the Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, and EMBASE until April 15, 2023, using search terms such as "bempedoic acid," "cardiovascular outcomes," and "randomized controlled trial." We also utilized medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and Boolean algebra operators to refine our search. We included articles that compared cardiovascular outcomes between patients receiving bempedoic acid and those receiving a placebo. The primary outcome assessed was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization. The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials with a total of 16,978 patients. The use of bempedoic acid was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events. Individual analyses reported a low risk of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization due to unstable angina in patients receiving bempedoic acid. Furthermore, our meta-analysis found that bempedoic acid is a safe treatment option, as there was no significant difference between the bempedoic acid and placebo groups in terms of adverse events and serious adverse events. Our findings support the use of bempedoic acid as a promising treatment option for high-risk cardiovascular patients. However, since our meta-analysis included a limited number of studies with short follow-up periods, larger studies are necessary to provide more definitive evidence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".