MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in children and adolescents with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia inadequately controlled with statins

2023· article· en· W4388600458 on OpenAlexaff
Raúl D. Santos, Albert Wiegman, Sonia Caprio, Bertrand Cariou, Maurizio Averna, Y Poulouin, Michel Scemama, Garen Manvelian, G Garon, Stephen R. Daniels

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSanofi (Canada)
FundersSanofi
KeywordsAlirocumabMedicinePCSK9PlaceboDosingStatinInternal medicineClinical endpointFamilial hypercholesterolemiaClinical trialPharmacologyGastroenterologyCholesterolApolipoprotein BLipoproteinLDL receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Alirocumab targets the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDL-R) regulator proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), preventing LDL-R degradation and reducing LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) level. Purpose This international Phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of alirocumab for paediatric patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) inadequately controlled with statins. Methods Patients aged 8–17 years with HeFH and LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL who were receiving a stable dose of statin (or non-statin therapy if statin-intolerant) were randomised 2:1 in two consecutive cohorts (dosing every 2 weeks [Q2W] or every 4 weeks [Q4W]) to receive subcutaneous injections of alirocumab or placebo equivalent for 24 weeks (double-blind [DB] treatment period). Dosage was adjusted based on body weight (40 mg Q2W/150 mg Q4W if <50 kg; 75 mg Q2W/300 mg Q4W if ≥50 kg). Dosage was up-titrated from Week 12 if LDL-C was ≥110 mg/dL at Week 8. After completing Week 24, patients could enter an open-label (OL) period during which they received alirocumab treatment for up to 80 weeks. The primary endpoint was difference in LDL-C percentage change from baseline to Week 24 between alirocumab and placebo. Key secondary endpoints assessed the efficacy of alirocumab vs placebo for other lipid parameters. Results Of 153 patients enrolled, 74 were randomised to Q2W treatment (49 alirocumab, 25 placebo) and 79 to Q4W treatment (52 alirocumab, 27 placebo). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. For Q2W and Q4W cohorts, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 12.8 (2.6) vs 13.0 (3.0) years, 51% vs 62% were female, mean baseline LDL-C was 171.6 (47.7) vs 176.7 (52.0) mg/dL, and 3/74 vs 8/79 were statin intolerant. At Week 24, least squares (LS) mean difference was −43.3% (97.5% CI: −56.0, −30.7; p<0.0001) for alirocumab Q2W vs placebo Q2W and −33.8% (97.5% CI: −46.4, −21.2; p<0.0001) for alirocumab Q4W vs placebo Q4W (Figure 1). Alirocumab was associated with consistent reduction of LDL-C from baseline to Week 24 vs placebo across dosing cohorts. The first 12 key secondary endpoints in the testing hierarchy (Table 1) showed significant treatment differences in favour of alirocumab at Week 24 for both dosing regimens. Overall, 145 patients entered the OL treatment period; LS mean (SD) change in LDL-C from baseline to Week 104 was similar for alirocumab Q2W (−26.3% [28.0]) and alirocumab Q4W (−23.9% [33.5]). No clinically meaningful differences in AEs (any level) were observed between treatment groups in the DB or OL treatment periods, and no safety concerns were observed in the 4 patients (3 in DB and 1 in OL treatment period) who developed anti-alirocumab antibodies. Conclusions Both dosing regimens of alirocumab were associated with significantly reduced LDL-C and other atherogenic lipid parameters in paediatric patients with HeFH and were well tolerated, with efficacy sustained over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→