MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407749356 · doi:10.1161/jaha.124.038656

Cardiovascular Outcomes With Icosapent Ethyl by Baseline Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: A Secondary Analysis of the REDUCE‐IT Randomized Trial

2025· article· en· W4407749356 on OpenAlexafffund
Rahul Aggarwal, Deepak L. Bhatt, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Michael Miller, Eliot A. Brinton, Richard L. Dunbar, Steven Ketchum, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Fabrice M A C Martens, Christie M. Ballantyne, Michael Szarek, R. Preston Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteSt. Jude MedicalGenentechIdorsia PharmaceuticalsAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisDuke Clinical Research InstituteEisaiPfizerModernaMedicines CompanyAstraZenecaAmarin CorporationIronwood Pharmaceuticals, IncorporatedNational Institutes of HealthRegeneron PharmaceuticalsAmerican Diabetes AssociationBoston Scientific CorporationAmryt PharmaEsperion TherapeuticsAlnylam PharmaceuticalsBelvoir Media GroupAmarin PharmaNovo NordiskMyoKardiaDaiichi Sankyo EuropeAbbott DiagnosticsServierGilead SciencesBristol-Myers SquibbCleveland ClinicBrigham and Women's HospitalHLS TherapeuticsGlaxoSmithKlineCSL BehringEli Lilly and CompanyAmgenSanofiAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionPlaceboPost-hoc analysisUnstable anginaClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialStatinGastroenterologyCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The efficacy of icosapent ethyl among patients with very well‐controlled baseline low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) is unknown. Methods In this post hoc analysis of the REDUCE‐IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial) randomized clinical trial, statin‐treated patients with high cardiovascular risk, elevated triglycerides (135–499 mg/dL), and baseline LDL‐C of 41 to 100 mg/dL were included. Patients were randomized to icosapent ethyl (2 g twice daily) or placebo and then post hoc stratified by baseline LDL‐C (<55 mg/dL versus ≥55 mg/dL). The primary composite end point included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. Results Among 8175 patients with baseline LDL‐C data, 7117 (87.1%) had LDL‐C ≥55 mg/dL and 1058 (12.9%) had LDL‐C <55 mg/dL. In patients with LDL‐C <55 mg/dL, the rate of the primary composite end point was lower in the icosapent ethyl group (16.2% versus 22.8%) than in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.50–0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 6.6%; P =0.003). Among patients with LDL‐C ≥55 mg/dL, a primary composite end point event occurred in a lower proportion of patients in the icosapent ethyl group (17.4% versus 21.9%) than in the placebo group (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69–0.85]; absolute risk reduction, 4.5%; P <0.0001). No significant interaction was observed between baseline LDL‐C and treatment group ( P for interaction=0.40). Findings were consistent among secondary cardiovascular end points and in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Among statin‐treated patients with elevated triglycerides and high cardiovascular risk, icosapent ethyl reduced the rate of cardiovascular end points irrespective of baseline LDL‐C, including among eligible patients with optimal LDL‐C control. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicFatty Acid Research and Health→French-language works237,207→