Serious Adverse Events of Inclisiran in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia, a Meta-Analysis of ORION Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have been conducted over the years to find an effective and safe therapeutic agent to treat hypercholesterolemia. Inclisiran is a novel drug being studied for its efficacy and safety in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases. No previous study was done to review the trials for the serious adverse events of this drug. The primary objective of this research is to investigate the incidence of serious adverse events of this drug. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials is performed. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from their inception till July 3, 2023, was performed for ORION trials, studying the efficacy and safety of inclisiran. The random-effects model was used in the meta-analysis to provide a pooled proportion of serious adverse events. The risk of bias in each study was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: From 319 studies searched from the databases, only 8 relevant articles remained after a detailed evaluation. These studies, having a total of 4981 patients, were involved in the analysis, with a pooled estimate showing a nonsignificant incidence of serious adverse events. Each adverse event was studied individually, and product issues and endocrine disorders had the highest odds ratio among them. All included studies were classified as moderate quality. CONCLUSION: Following systematic review and meta-analysis, we found no significant differences in any serious adverse events following the administration of inclisiran. However, larger ongoing trials will provide additional data to evaluate the safety profile of this agent.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.027 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".