MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Relation of apolipoprotein C3 to risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and death after acute coronary syndrome on a background of optimized statin treatment

2024· article· en· W4403806362 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory G. Schwartz, Esther Reijnders, Michael Szarek, J. Wouter Jukema, Deepak L. Bhatt, Vera Bittner, Sergio Fazio, G Garon, Shaun G. Goodman, Robert A. Harrington, Ivana Stevanović, Harvey D. White, Christa M. Cobbaert, Philippe Gabríel Steg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoSanofi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineAdverse effectStatinCardiologyApolipoprotein BCholesterolMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Apolipoprotein C3 (ApoC3), a component of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and some low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein particles, has been shown to predict incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, it is unknown whether ApoC3 predicts risk in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receiving contemporary therapies including optimized statin treatment, and if any such association is independent of apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels. Purpose We assessed the association of ApoC3 with first MACE (CHD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal ischaemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) and all-cause death in patients with recent ACS treated with high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin and blinded PCSK9 inhibitor (alirocumab, ALI) or placebo (PBO). Methods ApoC3 was measured by mass spectrometry at baseline (n=11,956) and after 4 months (M4; n=11,176) of treatment with ALI or PBO in the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (which had 18,924 total participants). In continuous and spline analyses adjusted for treatment group and ApoB, we assessed the association of baseline ApoC3 with risk of MACE and death. In the ALI group we determined association of change in ApoC3 from baseline to M4 with risk of MACE and death after M4 in a model adjusted for baseline ApoC3 and ApoB, and the change in ApoB from baseline to M4. Results Median (Q1, Q3) baseline ApoC3 concentration was in a normal range [85 (65, 113) mg/L]. Continuous ApoC3 was not related to MACE (p=0.50) or death (p=0.51); spline analysis showed a slight curvilinear association of baseline ApoC3 with risk of MACE and death, but no clinically meaningful relationship (Figure). Findings were similar in the PBO group alone, and without adjustment for ApoB (data not shown). At M4, the median (Q1, Q3) change from baseline in ApoC3 was -10 (-27, -5; p<0.0001) mg/L with ALI and 2 (-14, 18; P = NS) mg/L with PBO. Overall, ALI significantly reduced the incidence of MACE (10.1% vs 12.1%; p=0.0006) and death (3.5% vs 4.2%; p=0.045) compared with PBO among those with available baseline ApoC3. However, the change in ApoC3 on treatment with ALI did not predict the risk of MACE or death after M4. Findings were qualitatively similar without adjustment for ApoB or its change. Conclusion In a cohort with recent ACS receiving optimized statin therapy and with median baseline ApoC3 in a normal range, ApoC3 did not provide clinically meaningful prediction of cardiovascular events or death. A modest reduction of ApoC3 by ALI did not associate with subsequent risk of MACE or death. It remains uncertain whether targeted therapies producing larger reductions in ApoC3 from higher baseline levels will affect cardiovascular risk.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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