MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412414116 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2025.1554631

Systemic evaluation of inclisiran on the risk of new-onset diabetes and hyperglycemia compared to evolocumab and atorvastatin

2025· article· en· W4412414116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fei Li, Huan Ye, Lin Chen, Yue Ma, Sunhui Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Fujian Province
KeywordsMedicineAdverse Event Reporting SystemAtorvastatinEvolocumabAdverse effectInternal medicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusGlycemicDyslipidemiaAlogliptinPharmacologyEndocrinologyInsulinSitagliptinCholesterolApolipoprotein B

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inclisiran is an siRNA-based cholesterol-lowering drug with N-acetylgalactosamine carbohydrate (GalNAc) and is used for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia. It reduces LDL-C by 50%, with a convenient dosing schedule and fewer adverse events. Unlike statins, inclisiran has not been associated with an increased risk of muscle or liver adverse events in clinical studies. This favorable safety profile makes inclisiran a valuable alternative for patients who are intolerant of statins due to muscle or hepatic side effects. However, its impact on glycemic control and diabetes risk is unclear and understudied. Methods and results: The US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) study analyzed hyperglycemia and diabetes risks for inclisiran, atorvastatin, and evolocumab. Data from 2021 to 2024 were assessed for Medical Dictionary (MedDRA) terms, and SAS 9.4 with a reporting advantage ratio (ROR) and Bayesian credible interval progressive neural network (BCPNN) was used for analysis. Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and specific search terms. Two research workers extracted data independently, and the study quality was assessed with the Cochrane and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. RevMan 5.4 and Stata 18.0 were used for analyses. Ethical approval was waived due to the use of public, anonymous data. From 2015 Q1 to 2024 Q1, 12,821,285 adverse events were reported in FEARS, with 3,375 inclisiran, 126,620 evolocumab, and 42,228 atorvastatin cases. Atorvastatin had a higher ROR for type 2 diabetes (195.03) than inclisiran (0.95) and evolocumab, but it was not statistically significant. Glucose intolerance and blood glucose issues showed weak signals for inclisiran and atorvastatin. A literature search yielded 16 relevant articles, including six cohort studies and 10 RCTs, totaling 297,863 patients. The incidence of new-onset diabetes was higher with atorvastatin than with inclisiran, placebo, and evolocumab. The SUCRA rankings were atorvastatin > inclisiran > placebo > evolocumab for new diabetes incidence. Conclusion: The FAERS study and meta-analysis indicate that inclisiran may carry a lower risk of new-onset diabetes than atorvastatin, warranting further investigation into inclisiran's impact on glycemic control.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207