MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409111255 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00507-0

Durability and efficacy of solbinsiran, a GalNAc-conjugated siRNA targeting ANGPTL3, in adults with mixed dyslipidaemia (PROLONG-ANG3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

2025· article· en· W4409111255 on OpenAlexaff
Kausik K. Ray, Ena Oru, Robert S. Rosenson, Jeremiah Jones, Xiaosu Ma, Jennie Walgren, Axel Haupt, Subodh Verma, Daniel Gaudet, Stephen J. Nicholls, Giacomo Ruotolo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipid metabolism and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research CentreEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsDouble blindMedicinePlaceboInternal medicinePharmacologyPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mixed dyslipidaemia, characterised by elevated concentrations of circulating triglycerides and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Solbinsiran, a GalNAc-conjugated small interfering RNA targeting hepatic angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3), reduced triglycerides and LDL-C concentrations in a phase 1 study. This study aimed to assess the durability and efficacy of solbinsiran in reducing concentrations of atherogenic lipoproteins in adults with mixed dyslipidaemia. METHODS: This double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed dyslipidaemia at 41 clinical research units across seven countries. Patients receiving moderate-intensity or high-intensity statins, and with concentrations of fasting triglycerides between 1·69 mmol/L and 5·64 mmol/L, LDL-C of at least 1·81 mmol/L, and non-HDL cholesterol of at least 3·36 mmol/L were included. Using an interactive web-response system, patients were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) to receive either solbinsiran 100 mg, solbinsiran 400 mg, solbinsiran 800 mg, or placebo, by subcutaneous injection on days 0 and 90. Patients were followed up for at least 270 days. The primary outcome was percent change in apolipoprotein B (apoB) concentration from baseline to day 180 with solbinsiran compared with placebo, analysed under an efficacy estimand (in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug). This trial is completed and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05256654. FINDINGS: Of 585 patients screened, 205 patients were enrolled in the study between July 20, 2022, and March 4, 2024. Patients (111 [54%] female and 94 [46%] male; median age 57 years [IQR 49-65]) were randomly assigned to receive solbinsiran 100 mg (n=30), solbinsiran 400 mg (n=58), solbinsiran 800 mg (n=59), or placebo (n=58). At baseline, median concentrations were 111 mg/dL (IQR 96-130) for apoB, 2·64 mmol/L (2·06-3·29) for triglycerides, and 3·16 mmol/L (2·57-3·82) for LDL-C. The placebo-adjusted percent change in apoB concentration from baseline at day 180 was -2·8% (95% CI -15·5 to 11·9; p=0·69) for solbinsiran 100 mg; -14·3% (-23·6 to -3·9; p=0·0085) for solbinsiran 400 mg; and -8·3% (-18·3 to 2·9; p=0·14) for solbinsiran 800 mg. Solbinsiran administration was well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse events. The number of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events was 18 [60%] of 30 patients in the solbinsiran 100 mg group, 30 [52%] of 58 patients in the solbinsiran 400 mg group, 26 [44%] of 59 patients in the solbinsiran 800 mg group, and 37 [65%] of 57 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Solbinsiran 400 mg reduced apoB in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia and was generally well tolerated. The impact of solbinsiran on cardiovascular outcomes remains to be investigated. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations64
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicLipid metabolism and disordersFrench-language works237,207