Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in women and men: Pooled analyses from phase 3 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sex-specific differences in the response to lipid-lowering therapies have been reported. Here, we assessed the effect of bempedoic acid in women and men using pooled, patient-level data from four phase 3 clinical trials of bempedoic acid. METHODS: Patients were grouped into two pools: 1) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) "on statins" and 2) "low-dose or no statin". Percent changes from baseline to at least week 12 in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), apolipoprotein B (Apo B), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), as well as safety, were analyzed by statin pool and sex. RESULTS: Overall, 3623 patients were included (bempedoic acid, 2425; placebo, 1198). Significant reductions in lipid parameters and hsCRP were observed with bempedoic acid vs. placebo in both sexes in the ASCVD and/or HeFH on statins (n = 3009) and the low-dose or no statin (n = 614) pools (p ≤ 0.002). Compared with men, women had significantly greater placebo-corrected reductions in LDL-C (-21.2% vs. -17.4%; p = 0.044), non-HDL-C (-17.3% vs. -12.1%; p = 0.003), TC (-13.8% vs. -10.5%; p = 0.012), and Apo B (-16.0% vs. -11.3%; p = 0.004) in the ASCVD and/or HeFH on statins pool. Women had similar reductions to men in lipid parameters in the low-dose or no statin pool and hsCRP in both pools. The safety of bempedoic acid was comparable between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis, women experienced significant improvements in levels of LDL-C and other lipid parameters with bempedoic acid.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".