Trial reportJAMA cardiology2017

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Evolocumab in High-Risk Patients Receiving a Statin: Secondary Analysis of Patients With Low LDL Cholesterol Levels and in Those Already Receiving a Maximal-Potency Statin in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Robert P Giugliano, Anthony Keech, Sabina A Murphy, Kurt Huber, S Lale Tokgozoglu, Basil S Lewis, Jorge Ferreira, Armando Lira Pineda, Ransi Somaratne, Peter S Sever and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2017. The graph read 2 numbers from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map: it finds no clear difference in 1. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

2numbers the graph read from it
1cell of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
Lipidsfavours the treatment · against placebo · ascvd, dyslipidemiafeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.860.79 to 0.92P = .65
Of 2034 patients (7.4%) who had a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL, evolocumab reduced the risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.07) to a similar degree as in the 25 529 patients who had baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P = .65 for interaction; 1 patient was missing baseline LDL-C data).
Lipidsno clear difference · against placebo · ascvd, dyslipidemiafeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.800.60 to 1.07
Of 2034 patients (7.4%) who had a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL, evolocumab reduced the risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.07) to a similar degree as in the 25 529 patients who had baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P = .65 for interaction; 1 patient was missing baseline LDL-C data).

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

PCSK9 inhibitors×lipids

InconclusiveOpen on the map →What to test next →

34 readable studies in this cell: 30 favour the treatment, 1 find no difference, 3 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.93established · 26 families support, 2 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.93This paper does not move the number.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
This paper · 2017
HR 0.860.79 to 0.92
4 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Lipid-Lowering Drug Therapy: Critical Approach for Implementation in Clinical Practice.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
6 · The record

Corrections and comments

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 10 institutions in 8 countries.

Robert P GiuglianoTIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) Study Office, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Anthony KeechNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sabina A MurphyTIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) Study Office, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kurt HuberThird Department of Medicine, Cardiology, and Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria.
S Lale TokgozogluDepartment of Cardiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Basil S LewisCardiovascular Clinical Research Institute, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.
Jorge FerreiraDepartment of Cardiology, Hospital de Santa Cruz, Lisbon, Portugal.
Armando Lira PinedaAmgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
Ransi SomaratneAmgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California.
Peter S SeverInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, England.
Terje R PedersenUllevål and Medical Faculty, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Marc S SabatineTIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) Study Office, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Amgen (United States) · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USCarmel Medical Center · ILHacettepe University · TRHospital de Santa Cruz · PTLung Institute · USSigmund Freud University Vienna · ATThrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group · USUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

Importance: Current guidelines for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease focus on high-intensity statins and targeting or using a threshold low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of less than 70 mg/dL for the highest-risk patients. Whether further reduction of LDL-C beyond these boundaries would be beneficial is unknown. Objective: To compare outcomes of evolocumab vs placebo in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL and in those receiving background treatment with a maximal-potency statin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary ad hoc analysis of the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial compared randomized treatments in 2 subgroups of patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease currently receiving statin. Patients were classified by a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 or at least 70 mg/dL and by statin intensity (maximal: atorvastatin calcium, 80 mg/d, or rosuvastatin, 40 mg/d; submaximal: all other dosages). Patients with baseline LDL of less than 70 mg/dL either had a final screening LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL or a final screening non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of at least 100 mg/dL. Data were retrieved from 2013 to 2016 and analyzed in 2017 based on intention to treat. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety outcomes included adverse events and events of interest identified in the FOURIER trial. Interaction testing was used to assess the consistency of results in patients who did vs did not satisfy the above criteria. Results: A total of 27 564 patients (75.4% men and 24.6% women; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [9.0] years) were included in the analysis. Of 2034 patients (7.4%) who had a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL, evolocumab reduced the risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.07) to a similar degree as in the 25 529 patients who had baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P = .65 for interaction; 1 patient was missing baseline LDL-C data). Of 7533 patients (27.3%) receiving maximal-potency statins, evolocumab significantly reduced the primary endpoint (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) to a similar degree as in the 20 031 patients not receiving a maximal-potency statin (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .88 for interaction). The key secondary endpoint was reduced to a similar degree in both analyses. No major safety concerns were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Evolocumab was equally effective in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease regardless of whether the baseline LDL-C was less than 70 or at least 70 mg/dL and whether the background statin was of maximal or submaximal potency.

Indexed as

AgedAngina, UnstableAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAnticholesteremic AgentsAtherosclerosisAtorvastatinCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterol, LDLFemaleHospitalizationHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAnticholesteremic AgentsAtorvastatinCholesterol, LDLevolocumabHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPCSK9 InhibitorsPCSK9 protein, humanProprotein Convertase 9Rosuvastatin Calcium

Identifiers

PMID29117276
PMCPMC5815002
OpenAlexW2767569336

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.